Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

This is my first post here. I've been reading a lot of super helpful reviews on the site, but I've still got some questions that pertain to the relevance of ski width, length, and camber profile when breaking trail in extremely dry snow.

I live in Interior Alaska where the snow is super soft and unconsolidated almost the entire winter because it's so dry and cold here. It typically erodes from the bottom up until spring warmth starts to compress and consolidate everything. Breaking trail usually means submarining to the bottom of the snowpack, even with snowshoes (old timers used monstrous snowshoes to walk in the flats, but they're worthless on hills). I figured a ski that maximizes surface area would be ideal for breaking trail, so long as it has the right flex pattern. I would like to steer it with a 3-pin binding (currently really liking my Alaska 75 mm boots). The Altai Hok 147 looks like a good choice for this, but I'd rather have a more versatile ski like one of the fat Asnes models if it would work for my conditions. I'm much more concerned with XC and climbing abilities than downhill at the moment, so I don't need much sidecut, although that seems to come with the fatter skis. It needs to be waxable too, scales suck in our snow conditions.

I've scrolled through all the available Asnes skis and I'm guessing that the Rabb 68, Nosi 76, Tindan 86, Fjoro 92, or EGGI 108 are going to be the best bet for what I'm after, although I do wonder about the Combat NATO or Ingstad (wish they had a bigger waist for my needs).

I've been using a 210 mm Madshus Voss and 205 mm Asnes Amundsen for a few years. They're fine for breaking trail until midwinter, then it becomes a brutal submarine battle, even on the downhills (mellow forested downhills).

Questions that come to mind:

- When breaking trail (horizontal or climbing) is it better to have the tip stay above the snow or do you want it to actually sink a bit so it stays level with the mid and tail when they inevitably sink a bit?

- Along the same lines, is rocker / low camber going to be my friend or my enemy when breaking trail (horizontal or climbing) in ultra soft unconsolidated snow?

- Does it become hard to sidehill with wider skis (like above 80 mm waist) when you're using leather boots? I have trouble sidehilling with my snowshoes in places and I imagine I'd have the same problem with skis approaching the width of my snowshoes.

- All else being equal, is longer always better for trail breaking? It certainly means more surface area, but I wonder how the length interacts with the flex of the tip. Also, it's much easier to lift a shorter ski out from beneath the snow than a long one if you do sink...

Thanks very much for your thoughts!

Welcome to the forum. For me, in deep dry powder there is no substitute for surface area. I would kick wax my biggest powder boards for those conditions.

Since you plan on waxing and don't need scales you can find a lot of used skis that would work. I think they would do better than the Altai skis.

Welcome, WavyGravy!

While I agree that flotation is important in the context you describe- it is not the only factor that matters in a deep powder XC ski. A full-length supportive flex is just as important- ESPECIALLY with any ski that has significant sidecut. There is nothing worse than trying to XC ski in deep dry pow on a ski that bows like a banana- producing the dreaded "pool-cover syndrome" where the tip/tail of the ski float higher in the snow column than the waist- it is absolutely frackin terrible . And a very soft fat tip is just as bad- leaving you feeling like you are skiing up a ridiculous slope- that doesn't even exist!!!

Before I even continue- this is probably the XC ski you need to try- and I want one too- the Peltonen Metsa:
- 70mm underfoot
- low camber
- no tip rocker
- trail-breaking tip
- zero sidecut
- lengths to 270cm
http://www.peltonenski.fi/outdoor_touring/

HOWEVER- circling back to my first point- I don't know anything about the flex of this ski and whether it is stiff and stable enough to be supportive in deep dry pow...From what I have read the Finns traditionally use this ski for travel on deep spring snow...Is the flex of this ski stable enough for deep dry pow?

Here is what I think a deep dry powder XC ski needs:
- VERY long length
- broad, raised, stable tip
- zero rocker of any kind
- low single camber
- full-length stable flex
- width of ~70-80mm underfoot
- no sidecut

Width is not everything- flex and geometry matter as much or more IMO/IME.
A couple of example from my own skiing:
My two most efficient deep dry snow XC skis are my 210cm Combat Nato and my 195cm Madshus Annum.
While the Annum definitely float higher in the snow column than the Combat- I am not convinced it is more efficient.
The Combat Nato breaks trail more efficiently (tip design) and it tracks better than the Annum. (The Annum is more fun downhill than the Combat Nato- which is where it replaced it in the past- but my Ingstad BC is just as fun downhill as the Annum and more efficient XC- so it has replaced the Annum).

wavygravy wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:02 am

The Altai Hok 147 looks like a good choice for this,

It is- but it is very slow. I would consider grip-waxing a 174cm Kom instead- faster than the Hok- still slower than a XC ski.

although I do wonder about the Combat NATO or Ingstad (wish they had a bigger waist for my needs).

I struggle to see how either of these skis would offer more flotation and stability in deep dry pow than your Amundsen...Though their lower camber would offer better grip than the Amundsen on hills.

I've been using a 210 mm Madshus Voss and 205 mm Asnes Amundsen for a few years. They're fine for breaking trail until midwinter, then it becomes a brutal submarine battle, even on the downhills (mellow forested downhills).

Question- is the Amundsen noticeably better than the Voss?

Questions that come to mind:

- When breaking trail (horizontal or climbing) is it better to have the tip stay above the snow or do you want it to actually sink a bit so it stays level with the mid and tail when they inevitably sink a bit?

You definitely want the tip to be stable with the rest of the ski for XC skiing in deep pow. Tip rocker does nothing to improve XC performance- there is no way to travel fast enough for a ski to plane in deep snow when XC skiing. And if the tip is wide and softer than the waist and tail- it will float higher in the snow column- causing- at best the midsection of the ski break trail (I have routinely watched the tips of my Eon/E109/FT62 do nothing as the midsection of the ski breaks trail- REALLY annoying)- at worst it will cause the ski to constantly be at an incline, requiring one to ski "uphill", even when the hill doesn't exist!!!

- Along the same lines, is rocker / low camber going to be my friend or my enemy when breaking trail (horizontal or climbing) in ultra soft unconsolidated snow?

Rocker not your friend for XC skiing and breaking trail- cannot travel fast enough for "early-tip-rise" and planing when XC skiing. And the combination of rocker and very soft tip is a XC nightmare in deep pow.
Low camber definitely your friend in deep dry pow- easier to pressure the ski and get grip- snow is not stable enough for a true wax pocket to work in my experience. (Though Asnes's skis with "moderate wax pocket" (e.g. Ingstad/Combat Nato/Gamme 54) do offer excellent K&G in deep soft snow.)

- Does it become hard to sidehill with wider skis (like above 80 mm waist) when you're using leather boots? I have trouble sidehilling with my snowshoes in places and I imagine I'd have the same problem with skis approaching the width of my snowshoes.

The wider the ski gets the more boot rigidity one needs to "drive" a ski. For skiing on pow on gentle terrain this is not really relevant- but on slopes- on has to ride fat boards with leather boots- as opposed to driving them.

- All else being equal, is longer always better for trail breaking? It certainly means more surface area, but I wonder how the length interacts with the flex of the tip. Also, it's much easier to lift a shorter ski out from beneath the snow than a long one if you do sink...

My experience/opinion-
Longer length:
- more float
- more stability
- better tracking
- better glide efficiency

Trail-breaking efficiency- IMO- has more to do with tip geometry and flex than the length of the ski.
For example- my 210cm Combat Nato breaks trail more effectively than my 210cm Gamme 54- because of tip geometry and flex- not the extra width or length of the Combat.

Getting around a great big circle- I think that Al offers a good point above- finding a decent fat, low-cambered board to try out...

At least in my local skiing context- wide fat AT skis are not more efficient deep snow XC skis than my long BC-XC skis. BUT- even my deep cold, soft snow is more moisture rich and stable than yours.

So- if your long Amunden is not doiing it for you-

The next thing to try is likely a big fat wide (and as light as possible) AT ski-
Before you fork out $1000 on a ski- see if you can find a couple of second hand skis to slap a 3pin binding out for some tests.
I would focus more on wide stiff AT skis than I would banana-rockered powder AT skis though for XC skiing.

And then when you are testing see if you can stop yourself from obsessing over flotation.
Just because a ski is floating higher than another does not mean that is necessarily more efficient as a XC ski than one that sinks deeper.

I will put here two Finnish articles that you might find interesting.

First, great summary about “There is no all-rounder that works well in every situation.” from www.Vilminkosukset.fi (Finnish wooden forest ski maker)
G’s Translation is not perfect but it gives you the idea.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... L_9fkjmsDA

Skis as a means of mobility

Skiing has always been part of the Finnish way of life. In a sparsely populated country, a light and stable ski was needed for long hikes. Especially in northern Finland, ski trips were usually tens of kilometers, even hundreds of kilometers.

In the 19th century, in Kainuu, the ski developed into a 2.7-3.0 m long and about 8 cm wide travel ski model that became common all over the country. The most important feature of this ski was good load capacity and stable behavior when skiing on soft snow.

There is no all-rounder that works well in every situation. A ski of its own is always needed for a ready-made track, a hard slope, downhill skiing, an open mountain, soft snow, etc.

When the ski surface is hard, the ski should be short, leg and stiff. If you also want to go downhill, the ski should be front-weighted and narrower in the middle.

When the ski pad is soft, the submersible ski should be long, wide, less legged and back weighted. The trip of the past is now perfect for a hiker who progresses slowly, observing nature, admiring the scenery.

The second one,
translated
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... -oapUngBRw

from
https://www.aarrelehti.fi/jutut/artikkeli-1.221339

“A tar-based ski made of wood is a frost-ski. In dry snow, the ski glides perfectly. Its tarred base material acts as a sliding surface forwards and a holding surface backwards...”


The article talks about also a custom 300cm skis from this company
https://suksitehdasylonen.fi/metsaumlll ... nkeen.html

Inariin wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:14 pm

......
The article talks about also a custom 300cm skis from this company
https://suksitehdasylonen.fi/metsaumlll ... nkeen.html

Beautiful Skis
Wood species: Birch, Spruce, Hickory / Red beech

Wow, I hadn't come across those Finnish companies before. I didn't know there were skis longer than 210 cm! Those wooden ones are gorgeous.

lilcliffy - Can you compare/contrast the NATO and Kom (176 length) in terms of trail breaking on flats and climbs in really soft snow? I've read some other posts of yours and have a good idea of the comparison, but wanted your latest thoughts on them. I may eventually end up with both, but I think one of those models is probably the best bet for what I'm after.

To elaborate on how I will be using the skis:

1) Breaking trail for up to 10 miles in deep, dry, sugary snow through forested areas in order to "set" tracks to ski on later with my skinnier Amundsen / Voss. Mostly contouring with a few steep sidehills and short, gradual ascents/descents. Turning on edge not necessary

2) Touring for up to 15 miles in dry, sugary snow on hiking trails (summer) that often follow ridgelines with significant elevation gain. Not really mountains per se, but rather what we call "domes" (lacking prominent peaks). Usually transitioning from thick spruce forest to alpine. Would need more steering / snowplowing for control on some of the downhills to avoid rocks and trees.

Inariin wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:14 pm

The second one,
translated
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... -oapUngBRw

from
https://www.aarrelehti.fi/jutut/artikkeli-1.221339

“A tar-based ski made of wood is a frost-ski. In dry snow, the ski glides perfectly. Its tarred base material acts as a sliding surface forwards and a holding surface backwards...”


The article talks about also a custom 300cm skis from this company
https://suksitehdasylonen.fi/metsaumlll ... nkeen.html

Welcome Inariin and thank you so much for joining this conversation and sharing these sites from Finland!!!

Those wooden ski are breath-taking. I want the 300cm!

I trust the ancient wisdom of the Finns, the Sami (and other indigenous ski cultures)!
If that ancient wisdom points to very long stable wooden skis- then that is what we should all be considering for covering distance in deep cold snow!

Now- I just need to move to Finland- travel to Finland- or seek the help of one my Finnish friends to get a pair of 300cm powder XC touring skis to Canada!
............

Question-
When reading the translations-
am I correct that the recommendation is to only use pine tar (i.e no wax) when on very cold snow?
...............

It is increasingly becoming clear that I want a long wooden ski for XC touring in mid winter....

Inariin wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:07 pm

Skiing has always been part of the Finnish way of life. In a sparsely populated country, a light and stable ski was needed for long hikes. Especially in northern Finland, ski trips were usually tens of kilometers, even hundreds of kilometers.

I have always wondered why ski technology and culture did not spread to indigenous people in North America...

In the 19th century, in Kainuu, the ski developed into a 2.7-3.0 m long and about 8 cm wide travel ski model that became common all over the country. The most important feature of this ski was good load capacity and stable behavior when skiing on soft snow.

Very cool.

There is no all-rounder that works well in every situation. A ski of its own is always needed for a ready-made track, a hard slope, downhill skiing, an open mountain, soft snow, etc.

This is very, very true.

When the ski surface is hard, the ski should be short, leg and stiff.

Does the "leg" translation refer to camber underfoot?

If you also want to go downhill, the ski should be front-weighted and narrower in the middle.

"Front-weighted" referring to a mounting point forward of balance point? And "narrower in the middle" referring to sidecut I assume.

When the ski pad is soft, the submersible ski should be long, wide, less legged and back weighted. The trip of the past is now perfect for a hiker who progresses slowly, observing nature, admiring the scenery.

"Less legged" referring to less camber underfoot?
"Back weighted" referring to a mounting point further back than balance point?

Thanks again!
Gareth

wavygravy wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:37 am

lilcliffy - Can you compare/contrast the NATO and Kom (176 length) in terms of trail breaking on flats and climbs in really soft snow? I've read some other posts of yours and have a good idea of the comparison, but wanted your latest thoughts on them. I may eventually end up with both, but I think one of those models is probably the best bet for what I'm after.

I am not sure if it is even fair to compare them as their design and intent are so different...
The Kom certainly floats much higher in the snow column than the Combat Nato. This is certainly wonderful for making short-radius smeary turns when downhill skiing- and the longer Kom certainly tracks better then the very short Hok- but, the longer, straighter Combat Nato is definitely a more efficient XC ski than the Kom- in all snow conditions- including very deep soft snow. From a XC perspective the two skis are good example of how flotation is not everything.
The Combat Nato is good in deep soft snow because of its full-length stable flex- the redesigned Ingstad has a similar stable flex- but the tip rocker makes it less effective breaking trail and XC skiing than the Combat Nato.
(Other skis with comparable width (e.g. Madshus Eon, Fischer E-109 Xtralite) are comparably useless in deep soft snow because the front third of these skis are VERY soft and unstable.)
The Kom is a fantastic short-radius, deep snow downhill ski- and it doubles as a bushwacking ski (like the Hok) for moving through very dense boreal forest.

Both the Combat Nato and the Kom are trail-breaking machines- due to their tip design and flex-
they both climb very well in deep snow- as they are not highly cambered- if appropriately grip-waxed.

To elaborate on how I will be using the skis:

1) Breaking trail for up to 10 miles in deep, dry, sugary snow through forested areas in order to "set" tracks to ski on later with my skinnier Amundsen / Voss. Mostly contouring with a few steep sidehills and short, gradual ascents/descents. Turning on edge not necessary

How would you compare the design and performance of the Voss vs Amundsen?
Is there a noticeable difference in flotation and/or stability in deep soft snow?

2) Touring for up to 15 miles in dry, sugary snow on hiking trails (summer) that often follow ridgelines with significant elevation gain. Not really mountains per se, but rather what we call "domes" (lacking prominent peaks). Usually transitioning from thick spruce forest to alpine. Would need more steering / snowplowing for control on some of the downhills to avoid rocks and trees.

The Combat Nato is wonderful downhill- though it has a very wide turn radius.
The Ingstad BC is a dream in the conditions you describe here. It not only has a shorter turn radius than the Combat- its rockered tip will plane at downhill speeds- and the front-third/tip of the ski is stable and supportive when XC skiing in deep snow.
............
Considering the above two described scenarios-
I think that the Combat Nato would be the most efficient.
The Ingstad BC would be the most fun in scenario #2.
................
However-
If the Amundsen- with its greater width and more stable flex- is not noticeably better in deep dry powder snow than the Voss- I question whether the extra 10mm (i.e. 5mm/ski) of width underfoot is going to make the Combat Nato/Ingstad BC that much better than the Amundsen...(though they will be better than the Amundsen on hills).
If the slight increases in width are not enough- then you need a 300cm ski!!!