New to Skiing - Northern Canada

[GrimSurfer]

Peltonen Metsa Step with the built-in skin in the longest size (270cm?) may be an option. Maybe someone else can weigh in on this. For flat terrain and long distance and a pulk full of gear you want the longest ski possible.

I agree with @mca80 on this.

Also, ski weight isn’t a significant issue in this application.

[lowangle al]

I've used my powder boards like snowshoes for poking around in the woods and I think they are more similar to snowshoes than a very long ski would be. With skins they would be almost the same. I think those long skis would be harder to get used to and be much less maneuverable.

[mca80]

I've used my powder boards like snowshoes for poking around in the woods and I think they are more similar to snowshoes than a very long ski would be. With skins they would be almost the same. I think those long skis would be harder to get used to and be much less maneuverable.

Most of his skiing will be lakes and other open terrain. Maneuverability shouldn't be much of a concern. Wide skis will be slower.

[lowangle al]

You have a point there about the lake travel but the other 20% of rocky windblown might be tough either way, unless he can take his skis off and hike. I wonder if the OP had to keep the snowshoes on for the windblown stuff or was it supportable without them.

There is also the availability and shipping issues with the Finnish skis. I would think he would have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a pair and then there is the extra shipping cost because of the length.

[GrimSurfer]

I don’t think fast or slow is an issue at -30 to -50 on the tundra. Steady and stable are priorities.

The ski needs surface area to bear the weight of a skier, plus their pack.

It also needs to be capable of applying force tangential to the direction of travel, even when pulling a pulk (not that this is being considered at the moment, but it’s the high north. One has to be ready for anything).

The drag of a wider ski would be offset by its length.

So I wouldn’t be against a WIDEr and LONGer ski for this application. I’d start looking at around 80 mm by 250 cm and move up from there in both directions.

[lowangle al]

What wide skis have you used for xcd?

[GrimSurfer]

What wide skis have you used for xcd?

In the arctic? None.

If I said 120s in the hills of Ontario or Anchorage, it wouldn’t mean much. Totally different climate, snow conditions, terrain and use-case.

We’re talking dry, wind packed powder. Most places in the high north are dead flat. Where it’s not, it is rocky and largely unskiable. Generally speaking.

What do you think the Canadian Army and Ranger Patrol Groups are skiing on up there? I’ve met with them in the north and seen their gear. It certainly isn’t skinny skis.

Why? Well let’s start with footwear. A cross country ski boot won’t work. Neither will a telemark boot. Your foot would freeze, before or after terminal condensation sets in (plastic boot).

This is one of my mukluks next to my Alpina Alaska. It would look even crazier if I had taken the time to align the heels.

Now what kind of binding would work for this on a narrow ski? And would it matter? You’d lose the ski under your boot, or roll over on it. The boot drag in the 40-50 mm track created by a skinny ski would be fatiguing.

And don’t get me going on how much heel lift you get in a boot like this. Diagonal stride is out. Shuffle slide is in.

So skinny skis = speed or lower friction isn’t part of the equation in the high north. The first thing to sort out is how to prevent losing limbs. That is a boot discussion, ending with “mukluk” or something pretty similar.

Now I’m no expert on the high north. Never lived there, only visited. But when somebody says “mukluks”, “-30 to -50”, “pulk” and Arctic, it starts the equipment discussion down a completely different path.

[farnorth]

Thank you all very much for your help! These responses have been more than I hoped. I am looking less at the Åsnes skis now and more to the Peltonen skis. There are 3 main ones I’m looking at; the 180x10cm Hunter Skin, the 270x7cm Metsä Step, or the 270x7cm Metsä Skin. The Hunter seems a bit short and lacking in tracking ability over long distances, its surface area is 1800cm squared. The Metsäs are 1890cm squared, so a small difference but the longer ones would be in contact with more snow away from my center of mass - kind of why skis seem to keep you up better than snowshoes in general. The Step has the fish-scale pattern on the bottom which seems would slide the best on the flats, but I am unsure if I’d just slide backwards trying to go up hills. The Skin would help with that, but I don’t want to compromise sliding ability on the flats. The hills I do occasionally encounter are relatively small and manageable with snowshoes on. I’d prefer a ski that can take them as well. Trees are scrubby and sparse, they shouldn't be a big deal with longer skis. What are your thoughts?

[lilcliffy]

Hello/Salut/Qey/Helo/Haigh Farnorth!!

How exciting to have you join us! I just came in from a wonderful early morning tur to get my kids off the bus to find your post!

I live in Northwest Territories, Canada, about 100km south of the tundra treeline.

Ok- so you in the boreal forest- not out on the open tundra- correct?

I have no experience skiing, but I snowshoe for my camping trips with a pulk - about 50km into the wilderness each way usually.

WOWOW!!! 50k into the true boreal wilderness?!! Wow- can I come?

It seems skis would be a lot more efficient but I am unsure what type to get.

Yes- no question about this- skis are waaay more efificient for distance travel than snowshoes.

The temperatures are usually -30°C to -50°C from December to March on my hikes. The snow is deep and soft/medium but very dry and crystalline. Sometimes there are dogsled/snowmobile trails. I travel 80% on completely flat snowy lakes, the rest of the time over windpacked snow covered rock that I may need skins to climb.

Interesting complex of conditions.

I am currently looking at either the Åsnes Amundsen BC, the Åsnes Børge Ousland BC, or the Åsnes Combat NATO BC.

I cannot speak for the Ousland ski- never even seen one. I have both the Combat NATO (210cm) and the Amundsen BC (208cm)- both of these skis are as good as it gets (for a fjellski) for stability and efficient tracking through deep soft snow. The Combat is a bit better in truly deep soft snow- the Amundsen is a bit better on hardpacked consolidates snow and breakable crust. The Combat is also a better downhill ski than the Amundsen.
The Ousland has significant rocker in the shovel- the Combat and Amundsen have traditional non-rockered shovels.

I want something that floats well on powder with a big curved sleigh tip to slide through the deep snow on completely flat terrain instead of lifting up every time with my snowshoes.

I would suggest that you don't want a rockered ski then. The rockered shovel is going to compromise stability and present a wider flat surface as you break trail- increasing friction.

Someone pls correct me if I am wrong here↓ I do not have any personal experience with long Finnsh forest skis-
Traditional, uber-long Finnish forest skis have reverse sidecut.
They are ~70mm and stable through the majority of their length.
Some models have not only have a traditional, triangular pointed tip- but also an elongated flexible extremity of the shovel that progressively tapers to the tip.
My understanding is that this design is for efficient travel trough very deep soft snow-
the elongated, pointed, flexible reverse-sidecut shovel-tip encourages the tip to rise higher than the core platform of the ski-
and with the narrowest point of the ski being the very tip- and the rest of the tip shovel gradually tapering to the straight core platoform of the ski-
the ski efficiently carves a channel through deep soft snow.
(totally unlike modern BC downhill skis that have a wide low-profile tip)

Some of the long forest skis have stiifer shovel-tips- this must be for wetter snow condtions?

If I was going that far through true boreal forest wilderness I would take two skis:
1) a very long stable "Finnish" forest ski for covering distance
2) a short, fat bush ski for short distances and aroung camp- or for getting through dense thickets

I have the 145 Altai Hok- it is superb for short distance skiing and skiing/working through very dense bush/thickets/forest. It is my fieldwork ski of choice and I use it instead of snowshoes unless the snow is unsuitable (the Hok onle works well on soft snow).
BUT- I would never want to take the Hok on a long-distance trek- not when I have more efficient XC skis in my shed.
Don't get me wrong- even the stubby Hok is more efficient than snowshoes-
BUT, the 145 Hok is not even close to as efiicient as my 210 Combat/208 Amundsen/210 Gamme/205 Ingstad/205 Nansen.
The Hok does float higher in the snow collumn than even my 210 Combat NATO- but the 210 Combat is a way more efficient deep snow XC ski- and it is just enough camber to be pretty decent on consolidated hardpack snow as well.

I would carry a ski like the Hok on my pulk.
I regulary ski out to fieldsites on long skis (e.g. Combat) with either the Hoks or snowshores strapped to my pack (or sled).

Again WELCOME! Please stay in touch and let us know how you make out!!!
Best wishes and happy holidays from the Canadian hemiboreal forest!
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

There are 3 main ones I’m looking at; the 180x10cm Hunter Skin, the 270x7cm Metsä Step, or the 270x7cm Metsä Skin. The Hunter seems a bit short and lacking in tracking ability over long distances, its surface area is 1800cm squared. The Metsäs are 1890cm squared, so a small difference but the longer ones would be in contact with more snow away from my center of mass - kind of why skis seem to keep you up better than snowshoes in general.

I doubt that I can describe-explain the physics- but my limited experience is that efficient XC skiing through deep snow is more complex than simply supportive ski surface area-
For example- even my 208 Amundsen/210 Gamme 54 is a more efficient XC ski in very deep snow than my 145 Hok- despite the Hok floating higher in the snow.

The term "hunter" describes what these short fat skis are for- shuffling along on top of deep snow and in very dense forest. I use my Hok for forestry fieldwork- I even cut timber with them on. Floaty and manouverable? Yes. Efficient over distance? No.
Flotation is not everything.

Personally I would want the waxable Metsa (i.e. smooth base), but I would take the scaled Metsa Step and grip/kick wax it when appropriate.
The issue/concern I would have with the Metsa Skin is in conditions when the skin is not ideal and one needs wax (grip and/or glide) and the skin is "in the way"...

Regardless- I think you want both skis- the short fat Hunter, and the Metsa.

The Step has the fish-scale pattern on the bottom which seems would slide the best on the flats, but I am unsure if I’d just slide backwards trying to go up hills. The Skin would help with that, but I don’t want to compromise sliding ability on the flats. The hills I do occasionally encounter are relatively small and manageable with snowshoes on. I’d prefer a ski that can take them as well. Trees are scrubby and sparse, they shouldn't be a big deal with longer skis. What are your thoughts?

Metsa Step.
Grip wax the base when appropriate- strip the grip wax when not appropriate.