DEEP Snow Touring Ski

[JohnSKepler]

We've had about 50" of snow in the last few days and it is completely inaccessible to me. My widest touring ski is a Voile Objective. Is there something that could let me start accessing the back country or do I need to be patient and wait until it's consolidated a bit?

[mca80]

Finnish forest ski, 270cm long and 70 or 80 wide, no sidecut. Or short and wide like OAC or Hok or the like. Max surface area.

[tkarhu]

Järvinen Lapponia is a good forest ski, with OK scales. But do not expect any downhill capability, it has zero sidecut.

I guess Åsnes Combat NATO and Amundsen in 210 cm would work well, too. The skis will sink more, but 30-50 cm on top of ski is not bad yet. I mean if it is powder. XC in deep snow will be tiring anyway.

It looks like people have liked Peltonen Metsä, too. Varuste has a discount for them actually. I have Peltonen Metsä deep snow poles, they are good and inexpensive. Yet it looks like Lapponia has better scales than Metsä.

[spopepro]

Hey John—what’s your avi training like? If I have your location right, I’d be pretty hesitant to go solo bc in that forecast as the runouts will make almost all terrain hazardous. Everyone needs to make their own choices, but I’d check any of my friends or partners too.

[mca80]

@tkarhu do people over there use waxable forest skis or mostly skin/scales? And how do you properly size them for one's weight, I couldn't find anything and I believe the Metsa comes in 230, 250 and 270. On the other hand, while our landscape here is probably similar to central Finland it isn't often that we have such huge dumps where theres 100cm of really soft snow. At what point, what amount of powder, does the really large surface area of a forest ski become necessary vs a nato or the like?

And yeah, mountains not good for forest skis. Although not sure there isn't also flat or gentle bc terrain for the OP.

[lilcliffy]

Would love to have a 270 forest ski with a very high-profile, triangular tip and a smooth wax base-
the only local conditions where this ski would get use is in mid-winter following big dumps of cold fresh snow→ grip wax!

I would imagine there is much use for scales and/or kicker skins on such a ski in later winter-spring on very deep snow...

[lilcliffy]

@JohnSKepler
Hi John,
You searching for a deep snow Alpine touring ski- or deep snow Nordic touring ski?
Gareth

[mca80]

Imagine 270 with a recessed insertion point for short skins! That would be sweet.

[tkarhu]

@tkarhu do people over there use waxable forest skis or mostly skin/scales?

At least the Järvinen Lapponia waxless is a classic. I would think of forest skis like of trucks or military gear. People want mostly hasslefree stuff out there. It could also be a hunter on the skis, who has also other stuff to think of besides their skis, like a dog etc.

It looks like nowadays the forest skis have skin versions, too. At least in Peltonen’s case I would choose a skin version.

how do you properly size them for one's weight, I couldn't find anything and I believe the Metsa comes in 230, 250 and 270.

You do not normally think of camber stiffness in forest skis. You more think of kg / m2, whether the ski will carry you.

Btw In my experience, mostly from skiing Gammes downhill lately, snow is so fluid that it fills your cambers. So camber stiffness is mostly for skiing on relatively hard grounds.

Length preference will depend on where you live. In Varuste reviews, someone finds 280 cm for 65 kg "adequate" Another review says 270 cm was good for 95 kg with gear. Third one writes 250 cm carries a 82 kg person, if snow is slightly hardened. Fourth one says 250 cm carries a 78 kg person well in deep snow. Fifth one says in deeper snow 250 cm is good for a 100 kg person, too. One finds 230 cm ok for 80 kg, but has bumped into some limits, too. One finds 210 cm too short for 60 kg. Well, it is a compromise between how deep in snow you want to ski, and how clumsy you want to be skiing around trees. And also, what you can deliver in your car Yet it looks like 250 cm would be long enough for most, which people do not find too clumsy yet. 270 cm does not look exaggerated either, I guess skiing with such a length will save energy. However, people who have bought shorter than 250 cm, write that they could have gone longer, too.

At what point, what amount of powder, does the really large surface area of a forest ski become necessary vs a nato or the like?

I live quite coastal, and forest skis do not make much sense here. Inlands they make more sense, and the more North you go. If your climate has at times plus degrees, there will be hard layers in your snow pack. Also at open places, wind will create them, too. So forest skis are most useful in forest areas near the arctic here in Finland.

I have not lived at such locations, so I do not really have that much first hand experience. However, when I started skiing in the backccountry, forest skis were a default. Most close to I have got to forest skis were my 220 cm / 70 mm Swedish army wooden planks. I guess they had about as much float as 210 cm Combat Nato, maybe a little more surface but Combat NATO’s fine tuned flex will compensate. The skis sinked maybe 20-30 cm, which was probably a half or a third of snow pack soft surface snow height. One trip was around new year in NW Lapland, another one wet and soft snow in Eastern forest Lapland.

[jtb]

If I were you, I would (and do) ski the Objectives in powder, assuming the avy conditions are not too risky, as mentioned above. They're not great pow skis for sure, but better than sitting at home watching the snow fall. 30 years ago, 82 underfoot was considered a powder ski. It's not like it became unskiable just because there are better options now.