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

[Capercaillie]

Another application for the new ski I have not mentioned yet, besidse trail breaking, would be going on the yearly easter skiing trip to the fjäll (swedisch mountains). The trip usually consist of a lot of flat sowmobile tracks in the beginning, then some climbing to a cabin and then trail breaking in different snow conditions at higher altitudes. With a backpack of around 10kg.

I did a similar trip in Jasper National Park a month ago during a warm spell (up to +10°C, spring-like conditions) on my 205cm waxable TN66. I think it is a good choice. It climbs well with the kicker skin and tips grip waxed. I imagine the Crown version would do just as well on warm spring snow. The biggest weakness was the downhill control of the skis and boots (NNNBC Crispi Nordland) in deep wet snow. My 195cm Ingstad with Xplore Alfa Skagets would have been much better. It sounds like the Amundsen is less downhill-capable than the TN66, which IMO makes the TN66 better for that kind of trip. Is the Combat NATO better or worse downhill than the TN66?

[lilcliffy]

Another application for the new ski I have not mentioned yet, besidse trail breaking, would be going on the yearly easter skiing trip to the fjäll (swedisch mountains). The trip usually consist of a lot of flat sowmobile tracks in the beginning, then some climbing to a cabin and then trail breaking in different snow conditions at higher altitudes. With a backpack of around 10kg.

I did a similar trip in Jasper National Park a month ago during a warm spell (up to +10°C, spring-like conditions) on my 205cm waxable TN66. I think it is a good choice. It climbs well with the kicker skin and tips grip waxed. I imagine the Crown version would do just as well on warm spring snow. The biggest weakness was the downhill control of the skis and boots (NNNBC Crispi Nordland) in deep wet snow. My 195cm Ingstad with Xplore Alfa Skagets would have been much better. It sounds like the Amundsen is less downhill-capable than the TN66, which IMO makes the TN66 better for that kind of trip. Is the Combat NATO better or worse downhill than the TN66?

The TN66/E99 XL (assuming that the new model is the same as the last-gen E99) has a shorter turn radius than the Amundsen due to the significant rocker of the TN66. However, the TN66/E99 is more cambered than the Amundsen.
Which is better downhill- depends on a number of interacting factors...If one is skiing a TN66/E99 in a traditional long XC-focused length- I personally don't find much difference in downhill performance. The TN66/E99 will be easier to initiate a turn, but one will still need lots of open terrain to turn them. Another dimension is the camber of the TN66/E99- if you have a XC length, you will have to fully pressure the lead ski to drive that ski in a turn. The more stable and supportive flex of the Amundsen makes them better in deep snow; the lower camber of the Amundsen offers better/easier grip.

TN66/E99 vs Combat NATO-
while the TN66/E99's geometry (i.e. with rocker) produces a potential shorter turn radius than the Combat NATO-
the Combat NATO is so much more stable- I find it much better downhill- especially in deep and/or challenging snow conditions. The Combat also offers better/easier grip than the more cambered TN66/E99.
Personally, generally, I much prefer the performance of the Combat NATO in steep terrain vs the TN66/E99.