Trail breaking ski

[stilltryin]

Regarding the Kom, the 174 weighs 2807g (6#3oz); the 173 Voile V6BC is a tad heavier at 2.98kg (6#9oz) -- weights per company websites.
Of course, there are lighter skis; just pointing out that w/in its class, the Kom is not especially heavy.

[Krummholz]

The Combat NATO is by far the most effective and efficient deep snow XC ski in that list above.
There have been at least two turs this winter in ~40+cm of fresh snow, where I have regretted taking the Ingstad over the NATO ski.
The Ingstad BC is remarkably stable in deep soft snow- making it perfectly acceptable as a deep snow XC ski- but the pressured-rockered profile of the ski in 3D snow make it less efficient than the NATO ski-
AND- I don't know that I have ever seen a XC carve a track through deep soft snow like the NATO ski.

That being said- the NATO absolutely crushes these other skis when it comes to striding and climbing in very deep soft snow- and it is still pretty good downhill (though it has a very wide turn radius).

Hope I am being helpful!
Gareth

Great job convincing me I need to “trade-in” my USGIs for a pair of NATOs, 200 cm and a 84 62 74 profile.

[lilcliffy]

Regarding the Kom, the 174 weighs 2807g (6#3oz); the 173 Voile V6BC is a tad heavier at 2.98kg (6#9oz) -- weights per company websites.
Of course, there are lighter skis; just pointing out that w/in its class, the Kom is not especially heavy.

Yes- good- and important- point.
The redesigned Kom is lighter than the 1st-gen (I have the 1st-gen Kom that is heavier than the weight currently posted).

Regardless- to qualify- when I say that I find the Kom "heavy"- that is comparing it to BC-XC skis- I don't find the Kom heavy for a downhill-focused touring ski.

[lilcliffy]

Great job convincing me I need to “trade-in” my USGIs for a pair of NATOs, 200 cm and a 84 62 74 profile.

Well, I must admit that I have barely used my USGI(MT65) ski since I got the NATO.

[dave52]

Breaking trail, like climbing without skins, just requires a little patience and maybe an adjustment of expectations. In around 12 inches of snow you shouldn't have any problem with your current skis. Things get tough when the snow is knee deep or higher when on your skis.

This is helpful, I'm going to temper my expectations some.

@dave52 you’re definitely in my weight class, so yes those Ingstad must be too short. I’m on a 210 Gamme.

Now here’s a question, when you climb in powder to you ever get snow sticking ?

With USGI's, yes sticking sometimes, I've had it piling up at times, turning the skis into lead boots! For Ingstads, I haven't noticed this really, they're the waxless version.

The Combat NATO is by far the most effective and efficient deep snow XC ski in that list above.
There have been at least two turs this winter in ~40+cm of fresh snow, where I have regretted taking the Ingstad over the NATO ski.

The Ingstad BC is remarkably stable in deep soft snow- making it perfectly acceptable as a deep snow XC ski- but the pressured-rockered profile of the ski in 3D snow make it less efficient than the NATO ski-
AND- I don't know that I have ever seen a XC carve a track through deep soft snow like the NATO ski.
..............

Which brings me to another question- how are you prepping/waxing your MT65(USGI) and your Ingstad WL?
In our local context- most skiers that are struggling in very deep snow first and foremost don't have enough grip.
(short, soft skis are a secondary problem)
...............
On the subject of considering a wide short downhill touring ski-
There is no question that the Kom you are considering (I have one) will float higher in the snow column than any of these skis above. I grip-wax my Kom in order to get enough grip in deep soft cold snow as well as icy refrozen snow.
However, the Kom is short, rockered and surfy- it wants to turn- it does not track like a XC ski.
The Kom is also heavy.
I only use the Kom when I am out doing laps- looking for downhill lines- and I avoid taking them if I have an extended XC approach. They are very slow and heavyu.
...........
**As another note my 188 Storetind is remarkably stable in deep soft snow and offers as much flotation as my Kom (despite its much narrower waist). The Storetind is a much more efficient XC ski than the Kom.
However the Storetind does not offer the short-radius surfy, slarvy turns that the Kom does. The Storetind is best a downhill ski when you can point them down the fall line and open them right up and charge- they are VERY fast.
...........

As I don't know the terrain, cover and snow you are skiing in- it is hard for me to give you any "advice"...
I would suggest you try the Kom-
If you are moving slowly anyway in soft snow, then the heavy slow Kom might not be an issue for you...
Some people, REALLY want to float on top of the snow when they are XC skiing- the Kom would definitely give you that vs the Ingstad/USGI
...........
Personally, I am not very concerned about "float" when it comes to striding and climbing through deep soft snow- I am more concerned with stability, tip initiation, and grip-glide.
As an example- my 195 Annum floats higher in the snow column than my 210 NATO, but the NATO is by FAR the more efficient XC ski in deep soft snow.

Thank you for the thorough post, lots to chew on here.

Some context if you're curious. I'm XC skiing in NW Wisconsin, hilly to flat terrain, I'd eventually like to tackle some more steep terrain, we don't have much of it, and what exists are steep and short, tight glades through forest. Average snowfall is maybe ~70", 4-5 month season. Typically once Dec hits snow accumulates till spring, although it does frequently settle. Temperatures will get to above freezing or near each month for sure, tamping down existing snow, creating breakable crust, especially this time of year. Usually fresh snow precipitation is less than 8", so I'm not usually facing bottomless depths of powder.

My snow-cabulary is limited, what is "3D snow"?

As far as prep: no prep to Ingstad WL; with the USGIs, been adhering to your backcountry waxing guide, Polar tip to tail ironed in at least 1x a season, wax pocket flavor of the day usually next coldest option from what would "normally" be recommended. Second year waxing, it's clicking and has been much more enjoyable than last year, haven't had much trouble with grip unless it's really steep.

Also exclusively skiing NNNBC, Alaska Alpina's, recent Fischer Transnordic pick up, haven't been able to ski yet.

Where does one find Finnish forest skis? I've heard them mentioned a few times but Googling doesn't turn up much.

Sounds like the NATOs would outperform what I have, as far as trail breaking, but I don't know if it affords purchasing considering my context and what I have versus what additional benefits the NATO would provide. I think if I add another ski it still might be the Kom, to reap DH benefits, but they sound pretty so-so for XC'ing distance. Let me know if you feel otherwise, and the NATO (or something else) would be the jam!

[Krummholz]

With USGI's, yes sticking sometimes, I've had it piling up at times, turning the skis into lead boots! For Ingstads, I haven't noticed this really, they're the waxless version

My snow-cabulary is limited, what is "3D snow"?

Do you mean the snow is sticking to the top sheet, more than wax pocket on bottom, or both?

Your skiing under the surface of the snow, depth of the ski varies depending on density of the snow, forward speed, turning. Each effects how the snow compacts under the ski so that the ski is supported and travels in a plane that can vary up/down. If you were on hard pack you could only go forward/back or right/left.

[fisheater]

With USGI's, yes sticking sometimes, I've had it piling up at times, turning the skis into lead boots! For Ingstads, I haven't noticed this really, they're the waxless version.



My snow-cabulary is limited, what is "3D snow"?


Where does one find Finnish forest skis? I've heard them mentioned a few times but Googling doesn't turn up much.






Dave the reason I asked about sticking is because when my skis stick a little on the climb, but they can self clean on the top by sliding them back and forth, well to me that’s like an easy on easy off skin!

3-D snow is snow you sink into a bit. It’s different skiing in snow and just not on snow.

Varuste.net has Finnish forest skis. I do not know if they can ship them to the States. The are a very good shop, good prices and good service.

[corlay]

was out on my 196CM Traverse 78's this past weekend, in 10"-12" of fresh snow, and was thinking about this thread...

I was able to K&G "ski" just fine through this snow with no issues at all.
No lifting/stepping with the ski (like a snowshoe) was even a consideration.

On flat sections, I was about to get 12" or so of "glide" with each stride, despite the semi-deep snow.

I am 5'10"/195lbs - so not a lightweight on an oversized ski to mitigate the "sinking effect".

Maybe I'm just not so picky about matching gear to conditions - but the TR78 did just fine in my opinion.

[stilltryin]

was out on my 196CM Traverse 78's this past weekend, in 10"-12" of fresh snow...
I was about to get 12" or so of "glide" with each stride...

That does not seem like much; maybe the snow was very heavy?

[lilcliffy]

Sounds like the NATOs would outperform what I have, as far as trail breaking, but I don't know if it affords purchasing considering my context and what I have versus what additional benefits the NATO would provide.

I don't think that the NATO ski is going to offer you any more than what the USGI(MT65) already does- at least not in terms of stability, float and/or trail-breaking. At your weight a 210cm of either of these skis would definitely be an improvement- how much- hard to say...

I think if I add another ski it still might be the Kom, to reap DH benefits, but they sound pretty so-so for XC'ing distance. Let me know if you feel otherwise, and the NATO (or something else) would be the jam!

The Kom is DEFINITELY a downhill ski- the NATO a XC ski for hilly terrain and deep snow.
All I can say is that I personally find my NATO ski a much more efficient XC ski than the Kom- even in deep snow.
Impossible for me to judge your context-
if you find the 200 MT65 too slow and inefficient in deep snow- the 174 Kom may be just as efficient for you...