Åsnes Combat Nato vs. Fischer Excursion 88 for Trail breaking/icy crust

[LaplandPaul]

Greetings community!

After getting myself a new Fischer Transnordic 66 205 and selling my åsnes Ingstad WL 205 (too little grip, no use for rocker) I am left with only one pair of xc skis! That needs to change

The TN66 works great for me in consolidated snow and snowmobile tracks and for causal sliding around on lakes. Now I am looking for something as wide or a little wider as the Ingstads to break trail in all types of snow, but especially when deep, grainy cold snow, or when there is a crust. I struggle with crusts on my TN66 due to its rocker and narrow 66mm shovels that cause my boots to get caught on the crust.

I think a Fischer Excursion 88 crown 199 or a Åsnes Combat Nato 200 would work well for me after reading lots on the forum. Question now is: which one?

What I gathered so far (correct me if I'm wrong):
- Fischer has more camber -> I like the feeling of higher cambered skis but climbing could be harder? Any benefit/downside of higher camber for trail breaking?
- Fischer is wider under foot -> more floatation, I like that
- Fischer has wider shovel -> less boot drag and abrasion in crust?
- Fischer has changed the rocker in recent years, but the Åsnes for sure has none -> no rocker = better crust breaking
-Åsnes is waxable -> potentially better grip in grainy powder and icy crust compared to only Fischer crown
- weight is quite similar I think?
- Fischer scales could wear down if used excessively on hard uneven ice? (See photo)
- Fischer scales have less glide on hard icy surfaces? Is grip wax on smooth base really better?
- weight could be important? Has anyone the actual weight of those lengths?

Maybe someone can give me some guidance on the descision Maye someone even owns both those skis? I know someone will recommend the gamme but I think I want that wide shovels to make a channel for the boots in crusts. Anyone having similar experience?

P.s. I do not care at all about downhill performance but might want to pull pulkas sometimes

Greetings from Luleå, northern Sweden

[lilcliffy]

Salut Paul!
I do own both skis-
210 Combat NATO
199 Excursion 88

My review of the 88:
http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... c37a846f1a

My review of the Combat:
http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... c37a846f1a

In my local BC ski touring- the Combat NATO ski remains my number one must have ski:
- superb stability
- very good kick and glide performance- even decent on consolidated snow
- low profile resistance underfoot- easy to pressure and get grip
- broad raised tip- trail-braking machine- in all snow conditions
- wonderful downwhill- though, has a very wide turn radius
- smooth, sintered wax base

I don't use my 88 very much- I have kept it for heavy visitors:
- superb stability
- very good kick and glide performance- even decent on consolidated snow
- more cambered than the Combat, but the resistance is more uniform
- rockered shovel
- lower profile tip than the Combat
- does not break trail anywhere near as efficiently as the Combat
- harder to turn in a long length than the Combat
- waxless scaled base

At my weight (185lbs), my experience is that the Combat and the 88 offer similar flotation and stability in very deep snow. Similarly, I don't personally notice any significant difference between a 199 Fischer 78 and a 199 Fischer 88.
I do think that heavier skiers get better flotation and stability in very deep snow from the 68mm 88.
(WTF does Fischer continue to insist on referencing the somewhat irrelevant shovel width- rather than the width underfoot?)

.......
A question- how deep is deep in your application?
That doesn't look like truly deep snow in your photos-
The Amundsen is an even better trail-breaker in breakable crust- and it is remarkably stable in deep snow.
(Where the Combat greatly outshines the Amundsen is on steep terrain (which I have a lot of on my turs).)
Just looking at your photos- I would be taking my Amundsen- not the Combat...
......

I much prefer my 210 Combat over my 199 88-
this is for many reasons-
mostly prefer it for trailbreaking and downhill.
Though I am thinking that I would like the 88 a lot more if it had a waxable base...

You considering grip wax?

Hope I am helping you!

[wabene]

Neptune Mountaineering has the Admundsen on sale for $290 in many lengths.

https://neptunemountaineering.com/produ ... m-skinlock

[mca80]

Neptune Mountaineering has the Admundsen on sale for $290 in many lengths.

https://neptunemountaineering.com/produ ... m-skinlock

Only 180 is in stock for the old topsheet model on sale.

[wabene]

^^^ @mca80 is correct

[mca80]

^^^ @mca80 is correct

I am looking for one in either 187 or 194, depending, so have checked that listing before, and again just now, heh. That seems to me like the ultimate ski for getting to town on variable snow--deep untracked, breakable crust, snowmobile-tracked, thin totally compact snow/ice where the plow has been, etc., on flat or rolling terrain with no need for any turns besides one step turn at a time here or there. Which leads me to ask the OP, looking at his pics, what @lilcliffy asked, i.e. just how deep is deep? Because the Amundsen in longest size possible looks ideal for his conditions.

[LaplandPaul]

Thank you all for your replies, especially lilcliffy! You seem to have every ski possible I already read your great reviews!

Yes, I am considering grip wax, but the Crown on my TN66 worked very well so far, so there needs to be some benefit to outweigh the extra efford

Maybe I do not understand the term trailbreaking correctly... Why would the Amundsen be a better trail breaker in breakable crust? The shovel width is identical to my TN66 so the boots would still drag on the crust. Yes the shovel is stiffer and no rocker but if you sink 20cm/8inch under the crust, I would expect that breaking the trail wider (using a wider shovel) would be much better.

Could anyone give me a short explanation to what makes a ski good for trailbreaking or refer to a source where I could read up on that?

just how deep is deep?

You are right, on the pictures, there is no deep snow. Those were just one example where the new ski will be used. There was maybe 10cm/4inch of soft snow under the crust in those pictures. I am not looking for a ski for deep snow, I am looking for a ski to break trail efficiently, especially with icy crust with some soft snow below.

I have kept it for heavy visitors

Why that? is the 199 too long for your weight? I am 80 kg... should I go shorter?


I compared my girlfriends Fischer Excursion 88 in 179 today to my TN66 in 205. Snow was 10cm/4inch of fresh powder on top of a weak crust under wich was 20cm/8inch of powder. I felt like both skis give the same flotation. But the shovel of the E88 was easier to push forward but did not emerge to the surface. The TN66 shovel came up to the surface but I had a harder time to push the ski forward. Especially, due to the boots that got caught up in the crust pieces. After this test, I feel like the few millimeter more from the E88 compared to the TN66 do not really matter. I probably need to go 100mm wide to get better trailbreaking and a proper pathway for my boots? Or do I have wrong expactations? Maybe one of those Finnish forrest skies could work like I expect (Peltonen METSÄ BC)? But those have super soft tips... seems to work even less when there is a crust... I am lost

[mca80]

You answered your own question in last paragraph... the TN66 shovel came to the surface and you had harder time with forward momentum. Now, imagine a ski like combat nato or amundsen where the tip is not rockered--it will not rise to above the snow but instead plow its' way through it. You will not be going fast by any means, but it will be a more consistent feel and more efficient, plowing straight through vs sinking in midsection while tips rise.

For breaking trail in most conditions a non-rockered or otherwise stiff tip to the ski will...break the trail. Whereas skis with rocker and soft tips are designed for float such that the tip will rise over the crust and you end up breaking the crust/trail with the midsection of the ski which is terribly inefficient and ucomfortable and... no fun.

We had 18" new snow past 8 days with the last couple days being about 40 and sunny during the day and below freezing at night. It's hard to ski in. My widest skis have a soft tip and rocker and basically I couldn't ski, the middle just sunk while the fore-end rose above the crust. My intermediate width ski with no rocker and a more even flex did a much better job making a new trail out of this crappy snow. So now I have a nice track to follow in days to come no matter the snow condition.

Width of the shovel is not very important. For float, width under foot and length are probably more relevant. Breaking trail with an Amundsen--yes your boots may be a few mm wider than Amundsen shovel. Probably not wider than a Combat NATO shovel. The drag from boots breaking trail on an Amundsend, however, will be less than the slowness of brealkng trail with a ski that doesnt break trail with the tip--i.e. if you have a highly rockered ski 84-62-74 and are breaking trail not with the tip because its rising but with the midsection, your actual trail-breaking width is less than width an Amundsen 67mm shovel that is stiff enough to actually break the snow. Make sense?

Fimnish forest skis are long and wide enough that they can float on deep snow and a soft tip facilitates that. Unless you want a 230, 250cm ski minimum, you cant accomplish that without tremendous width which makes the xc aspect less efficient.

[LaplandPaul]

Thank you!! That makes a whole lot of sense. Then it must be the non-rockered tip of the Nato that makes it a better trail breaker in any condition?


What about camber? Isn't the higher camber of the Fischer putting more weight on the shovel tips compared to the more even spread force on a lower cambered ski? More foce on the shovel = better crust breaking?

@mca80 what ski are you using for trail breaking?

[lilcliffy]

Yes, I am considering grip wax, but the Crown on my TN66 worked very well so far, so there needs to be some benefit to outweigh the extra efford

I really think that you won't find grip wax laborous- especially since you live in a northern climate, with long periods below freezing. (AND- once you have experienced the magical performance of grip wax, you might feel a little underwhelmed by even Fischer's Offtrack Crown...)

Maybe I do not understand the term trailbreaking correctly... Why would the Amundsen be a better trail breaker in breakable crust? The shovel width is identical to my TN66 so the boots would still drag on the crust. Yes the shovel is stiffer and no rocker but if you sink 20cm/8inch under the crust, I would expect that breaking the trail wider (using a wider shovel) would be much better.

You are not breaking trail with the tip of a rockered ski- you are breaking trail with the rockered shovel.
This is always inefficient compared to a non-rockered shovel, but it is brutally inefficient in breakable crust- the rockered shovel rides on top of the crust, while the waist breaks through the crust.
The non-rockered Combat NATO is a very good XC crust buster, but I have tested it against the narrower, stiffer, Amundsen enough times to know that it is even better.
The Combat ski is not rockered, but it does have a relatively soft shovel (i.e. in comparison to the midsection of the ski- the Combat shovel is still stiffer than say a E109/TN82 XL)-
the "soft" shovel of the Combat- combined with its sidecut- can result- in certain crust conditions- with the "narrow" waist breaking through the crust and the much wider, softer shovel riding on the crust.
Generally speaking, the Combat is excellent in breakable crust- but, I must admit that the Amundsen is even better.

Could anyone give me a short explanation to what makes a ski good for trailbreaking or refer to a source where I could read up on that?

Characteristics of a good trail-breaking ski- in backcountry-cross-country context:
- no rocker
- stiff, raised, triangular tip
- little to no sidecut

In my experience, rocker is a disadvantage when it comes to breaking trail- in any type of snow.
(Rocker definitely improves downhill performance.)

just how deep is deep?

You are right, on the pictures, there is no deep snow. Those were just one example where the new ski will be used. There was maybe 10cm/4inch of soft snow under the crust in those pictures. I am not looking for a ski for deep snow, I am looking for a ski to break trail efficiently, especially with icy crust with some soft snow below.

The Amundsen is my best XC ski in these conditions you describe- with the Combat NATO a close second for the most part.
BTW- the Nansen is also pretty good, but it's sidecut- combined with it's rounder flex- can cause the narrow waist to break through, with the shovel and tail riding in the crust (similar to my description above).

I have kept it for heavy visitors

Why that? is the 199 too long for your weight? I am 80 kg... should I go shorter?

No, I don't find it too long for my weight- I just don't find I gain anything with the 88 vs 78 at that length- and the 78 is lighter and faster, so I have no use for the 88...

I compared my girlfriends Fischer Excursion 88 in 179 today to my TN66 in 205. Snow was 10cm/4inch of fresh powder on top of a weak crust under wich was 20cm/8inch of powder. I felt like both skis give the same flotation. But the shovel of the E88 was easier to push forward but did not emerge to the surface. The TN66 shovel came up to the surface but I had a harder time to push the ski forward. Especially, due to the boots that got caught up in the crust pieces. After this test, I feel like the few millimeter more from the E88 compared to the TN66 do not really matter. I probably need to go 100mm wide to get better trailbreaking and a proper pathway for my boots? Or do I have wrong expactations? Maybe one of those Finnish forrest skies could work like I expect (Peltonen METSÄ BC)? But those have super soft tips... seems to work even less when there is a crust... I am lost

I would suggest that you are primarily dealing with crust and your boot due to the soft rockered shovel of the TN66 (as opposed to its width).
...........
The Metsa has reverse sidecut and a flex profile for covering distance in very deep snow- the core of the ski has zero sidecut and offers a completely stable platform- the softer reverse-sidecut shovel tapers up to a raised, pointed tip- when pushed through deep soft snow, the combination of the soft-flexing, reverse-sidecut shovel and raised, pointed tip, produces an extreme version of a traditional raised Nordic ski tip- perfect for breaking trail in very deep soft snow. I am not sure how this design would work in breakable crust...There are Finnish forest ski designs that have stiffer shovels- perhaps intended for spring snow and breakable crust?
...