New skis for new guy

[Mountain Ash]

Hello everyone! This is a typical long-time-lurker-new-guy post. It’s been a real pleasure reading you all nerding out about rocker, camber and other Nordic arcana. I usually pride myself in thoroughly researching new interests, and I did, but it pains me to admit I’m still confused.
So I humbly ask for your expert wisdom : Which ski should I get?

Here is my situation:

• Live in Gaspésie, Québec. Cold temps, lots of snow, humid-ish climate. Varied terrain with flat river bottoms, steep valleys and rolling plateaus.

• Been XC skiing for about a decade, but getting more serious about it only in the last 2-3 years. Classic style, gotta love that K&G. No experience whatsoever in real downhill skiing.

• Preference for waxing, but open minded. I did not enjoy my short experience on waxless skis, but maybe it wasn’t the right ski for me.

• Pretty rotund at the moment. I weigh 210 pounds and carry a pack most of the time.

Here’s what I would like to do with the kit I’d like to get, in decreasing order of likeliness :

• Long days of solo small game hunting on forest roads. Some flat, some rolling. Mostly breaking trail in often deep snow, and coming back the way I came.

• Short day tours with my partner, on a mix of consolidated (snowmobile trails) and deep snow. She skis Rossignol BC125s for now.

• Eventually, with enough experience, some hut to hut tour in steeper terrain. Something like Parc de la Gaspésie or Traversée de Charlevoix.

• Some rare winter camping trip. Probably dragging a pulk.

From what I read on here I was looking real hard at 210cm Combat NATOs (or equivalent from Fischer or Madhsus, but it’s not clear for me what that could be…), thinking I could always get a Gamme/TN66 later to round out my quiver.
But then I went to my local store and the employee really made me doubt. The guy was steering me towards a fatter Rossignol XP100, especially when I mentioned breaking trail in deep snow. He was also saying nobody uses wax in the backcountry, and that wax on loose snow would be a miserable experience.

Are my expectations unrealistic for a bit of kick and glide *through* deep snow on skinnier skis rather than plodding along *on top* of the snow with fat skis?

What do you guys think? Merci beaucoup pour votre aide!

[riel]

From what I read on here I was looking real hard at 210cm Combat NATOs (or equivalent from Fischer or Madhsus, but it’s not clear for me what that could be…), thinking I could always get a Gamme/TN66 later to round out my quiver.
But then I went to my local store and the employee really made me doubt. The guy was steering me towards a fatter Rossignol XP100, especially when I mentioned breaking trail in deep snow. He was also saying nobody uses wax in the backcountry, and that wax on loose snow would be a miserable experience.

Are my expectations unrealistic for a bit of kick and glide *through* deep snow on skinnier skis rather than plodding along *on top* of the snow with fat skis?

What do you guys think? Merci beaucoup pour votre aide!

Flotation depends on the total surface area of the ski that is lifting you up, and how much that part of the ski flexes. A ski that is wide, but soft, may result in you being knee deep in the snow, while the tip and tail of the ski are sticking out of the snow, rudely gesturing at you.

Meanwhile, a ski that is stiff can effectively carry you along its entire length, potentially resulting in sinking in less than a wider, but softer ski. Ski flex and width both help determine how much of the surface area of the ski will help carry your weight.

I do not know how stiff the Rossignol XP100 is. If it is a soft ski, like the Fischer S-Bound series, the middle of the ski could just sink into the snow, without the tip and tail contributing to your flotation much at all.

As for the Asnes Combat NATO and Ingstad skis, those are relatively stiff along most of their length, resulting in a ski that should not let you sink in too much while breaking trail in soft snow.

However, they are approximately 25% narrower than the Rossignol BC100/XP100. How much flotation each ski provides depends on the big unknown factor of the Rossignol flex (and flex pattern).

For reference, in Finland people use forest skis of up to 270cm long, and 70mm wide, to provide flotation in bottomless powder. Much of those skis is just stiff, to carry the skier's weight, while the tip is soft flexing to help turn the ski.

To recap: flotation comes from total surface area, which is a function of both width, as well as length and flex.

[エイダン.シダル]

First of all, as an Anglophone who made the mistake of returning to Toronto from university in Montréal, then from years in Japan, I envy you your location, and please never make my mistakes: Toronto is just the worst, not only for XCD.

Second, never trust a salesperson.

Third, I'm unfamiliar with Gaspé snow, but I'd imagine it's not exactly powder, except perhaps the peaks of Les Chic-Chocs.

I have Gammes (68-54-61) and Fischer S Bound Outabound 88s (88-68-78) with NNN BC Alaskas, to cover the bases in Southern Ontario: forest trails, packed or unpacked, never powder. Use the Gammes most. I'm guessing I wouldn't want much wider even where you are, for my XCd. I would want an AT set for my xcD days in the Chic-Chocs hills, though (because I can't tele...).

Bear in mind I'm kinda talking out of my ass, but if my goal were to have the three skis, there's two strategies for the first to buy: the one you'll use most, or the one that can do most (Ingstad? NATOs are heavier and the same dimensions).

As for wax/less? I prefer wax for glide and moral reasons... Anyway, definitely waxable on packed snow. Waxless/kicker skins are more reliable on untouched and variable snow.

Bonne chance!

[JohnSKepler]

I’m pretty new too, however, I can speak from experience on this single topic: if you’re upping your game don’t go Rossi. They mass produce their consumer grade skis in China. I’m replacing my BC65 and BC80 with Åsnes and Fischer or Madshus.

[wabene]

If you're looking for a waxable ski in that category, unfortunately right now it's limited. Madshus did make a waxable M62 with a kicker skin attachment for a couple of years, but for whatever reason they aren't offering that in their 62mm waisted ski right now. Only fishscales with no kicker skin. Fischer's T78 has the kicker skin but scales only. This category you are interested in can be a good all around ski. The NATO can handle many conditions and break trail very well. A wax version when you get it right can be unparalleled in the backcountry especially if you have consistently cold snow. There is much info here on how to wax off-track. For me having that kicker skin in the pack is a super option for when it warms up and you don't want to mess with the sticky soft wax. I have the Madshus M62 with a waxable base and kicker skin. It's a great ski in many conditions especially when there is some fresh snow on top. From what I understand the NATO is a stiffer ski with a very even flex that will support you well as things get deeper. Probably a better ski than my Madshus in the deeper stuff. The Åsnes would also be a good ski for the heavier skier. I've never skied the modern Combat NATO only the very old school USGI version, which is not the same ski. I'm sure those with direct experience could correct me if I've got it wrong.

[John_XCD]

I think you are on the right track with waxable 210 nato (or ingstad?). I ski 200cm breidablikk (essentially a nato without metal edges for skiing with dogs) that I just love for moderate terrain in soft snow (light Utah powder!). I will go narrower for more consolidated snowpack (snowmachine trails) or wider for steeper turn focused skiing. Breidablikk best for soft trail breaking and hits the midpoint between efficient xc skiing while allowing pretty good tele turning with the right technique.

Waxless is most beneficial in warmer spring corn conditions. I would get waxable and then get the x skin to use when conditions are not good for waxing or steeper climbs etc.

[Mountain Ash]

Thanks a lot everyone, that's very helpful!

I should have added that whatever the ski I end up getting, I absolutely intend to carry kicker skins and maybe even full lenght depending on terrain.

I will definitely cross the Rossis out from the list.

I had not considered the Ingstad because of Lilcliffy's reviews posted here (which is a real treasure of information btw). If I recall correctly the current-gen Ingstad have the same dimensions as the NATO but don't have the same flex pattern, making the NATO more efficient at XC and trail breaking.

I'm a classic overthinker, I guess I better pick one model and get some experience with it. Whatever I get is probably going to be more ski than I can handle anyway!

Toronto is just the worst, not only for XCD.

I have never even been close to Toronto, but as any self-respecting Québécois I feel morally obligated to wholeheartedly agree haha!

[CwmRaider]

I had not considered the Ingstad because of Lilcliffy's reviews posted here (which is a real treasure of information btw). If I recall correctly the current-gen Ingstad have the same dimensions as the NATO but don't have the same flex pattern, making the NATO more efficient at XC and trail breaking.

The Combat NATO differs from the Ingstad in these ways:
- it is a bit heavier due, in part, to a titanal plate in the binding area.
- it has no rocker (probably the biggest difference) --> longer effective length = more efficient on consolidated snow and better trail breaking, and better in breakable crust, so overall better XC properties, but less surfy and longer effective length means less turny (though it is fun to carve with the NATO when you have the space).
- It has a hole in the tip, historically to make sleds for military use
- The Combat NATO has a machined slot in the base which reduces drag with older style Åsnes skins with the metal fastening clip; it does nothing for the new X-skins.
- The NATO is painted over white, whereas the Ingstad has a plastic cap construction which is more durable.
- The NATO base is plain black, I like this as it is easier to see when wax needs a touch up (and you can warm the bases easier in the sun).

[エイダン.シダル]

How about the Otto Sverdrup...?

[CwmRaider]

How about the Otto Sverdrup...?

I prefer the Otto Sverdrup over the NATO for most applications. They both are excellent skis. Apparently the Sverdrup is bad in breakable crust, and I could imagine it may do worse than the NATO while XC skiing in very deep powder. Not conditions I normally ski in, but they have happened in the past (though not with either ski here). The Sverdrup is much easier to manoeuvre in descents.

Im not sure whether the 10% less surface area of the Sverdrup would be a big deal for the OP.