Help needed for ski choice for solo pulka trip West-Greenland

[Ernst R]

May it be a good idea to use nylon x-skins for any downhill that feels uncomfortable? That might sound overkill, but better safe than sorry, when you are alone on an expedition. X-skins are quick to put on and to take off. Nylon gives a snow-shoe like feel.

Full length skins are a default with a pulk. I find those might be overkill, if there are lots of flats like in the photos. Yet I would be slightly conservative, if going against the default as a XC novice. Skiing with a pulk, there are risks that are not present in more casual XC-BC settings.

Learning some grip waxing for the West Greenland March frosts may be a killer idea. Fischer easy-skins may break at the skin attachment hole, and generally mohair skins may not last even 100 km on such hard snow. On the other hand, nylon or mix skins may create excess drag for the mostly flat landscapes of the photos IMO. When going uphill, I would put some sturdies skins on with a pulk, though.

Blue wax works actually alright also at colder frost temps. Yes blue is not optimal at -10’ C or colder, but that you can spread without heating out there. Maybe you need a slightly longer grip waxed area then. And if one has spread butter on a bread earlier, same skillls apply to blue wax. Just with the wax, use a cork instead of a knife

EDIT.: Oh but icy snow may actually require klister, which makes waxing kindof challenging… Going all the way to Greenland, a few pairs of skins in a pulk could make sense. The following is a good article on skins for BC-XC. Especially the Crister Næss info box.

https://asnes-academy.com/en/tips-and-t ... ort-skins/

I'm trying to understand waxing, and have been reading quite a lot (and will return to Hardangervidda with my ski setup before I leave for Greenland.

Skins (mohair) weigh little compared to all the stuff I carry around, so I'll probably carry a short and full-length skin and spares. Just for comparison my sleeping bag is >3kg, White gas for melting snow is 3 liters, ...

Thanks all so very much for taking the time to help me!

[lilcliffy]

Dear All,

I'm planning to do the arctic circle trail (ACT) in Greenland in early march 2024. It's a 160 km trip with mostly a thin (5-30 cm) cover of old frozen snow (see pictures). A few hilly sections, but also a lot on frozen lakes and almost always following snowmobile tracks.

Hello and WELCOME Ernst!!
How exciting is this! Touring in Greenland (and Svalbard; and Antarctica- oh- and Norway; northern Sweden; northern Finland...) is on my list of MUST dos. (Perhaps some year soon I will be less home-bound with family, job and farm...)

I tried a few days in march 2022 on Hardangervidda on loaned (as advised by local shop in Geilo) waxless Rossignol BC 65 (65-52-62) and I felt VERY unstable on the icy snow (I should add that that was with backpack and so I was top heavy). I only felt secure using full length skins for almost the entire trip.

Ok- I think this already been mentioned- but, I think perhaps the most significant factor in your poor experience with the BC65 was lack of grip. Yes- we ski for the magic of gliding on snow- but grip is a big f-in deal. Scales don't grip well on icy snow to begin with, and 52mm is not much grip area (my point here is that skiers that claim they get "adequate" grip on icy snow with scales alone are likely referring to an AT ski with at least 80mm underfoot...Personally, I find even my 98mm Kom to be wanting for grip on cold icy snow...)

an Xplore binding as I think this would give me more stability (am I correct in this assumption?).

the XP binding is the most rigid connection between boot-binding of any of the BC Nordic bindings (ie NN/NNNBC/XP). Whether this translates into "more stability" depends on a wide range of factors.

I'm NOT primarily concerned with speed or efficiency, but with safety (I'm alone out there; and will have full length skins and my microspikes as backup). And I will take some time before departure to train and familiarise with the ski's.

If "Safety" is your primary concern- I would make sure you have contingency plans for possible XP boot failure...I am quite taken with the XP system- in terms of performance- but, I don't think I would take it on a true wilderness expedition...
(An aside- do we yet have any credible reports on XP in polar wilderness skiing?)

I already have the shoes (Alfa Polar in Xplore binding) so Xplore binding is already fixed. And I was leaning towards the Nosi 76 from Asnes, but I'm completely open to suggestions.

Well- (and pls forgive me for obnoxiously explaining things you already know)-

These are my thoughts on using a ski like the Nosi 76 for your intended tur (based on my personal limited experience)-

the Nosi 76 is an AT ski- oriented towards ultra-light ski mountaineering:
- the Nosi is not a Nordic ski- and is not tuned for overland travel
- the Nosi is stiff, has almost zero camber- and is rockered and tapered
- the Nosi is a downhill ski- tuned for turning and stabilty at speed

The Nosi will have no directional stability on your planned tur- it will wander all over the place- ESPECIALLY on hardpacked snow. You will waste an incredible amount of energy dealing with this over distance.

The Nosi has a very short load-bearing surface on hardpaced snow- due to length and rocker- it will feel unstable XC skiing.

The Nosi has a very short glide zone on hardpacked snow- due to length and rocker- it will feel unstable when XC skiing. It will also offer VERY limited glide in XC mode- especially with skins on.

The Nosi has almost zero camber- your traction zone (ie grip wax/scales/skins) will drag- ALL THE TIME- and the tracion zone will not release when you stride forwards.

(Also- note that the Nosi does not use Asnes' Skin-lock/X-skin insert- it uses the wider AT "Access Skin" insert.)

Perhaps obvious- but, personally I would not be taking a ski like the Nosi on your intended tur.
..........
And be careful with modern BC Nordic skis-
"Nordic rocker" and taper are all the rage in current BC Nordic ski design.
For example- my Ingstad BC and Sverdrup BC are so directionally unstable when XC skiing on hardpack (eg snowmobile track) that there have been many times that I was so frustrated that I have almost taken them off! (If I anticipate needing to travel significant distance on snowmobile track I do not take either of these skis.)
...........
Although longer length increases stability of any ski (including at high dowhill speeds)- stability when Nordic skiing is even more dependant on fore-aft stability, because one is striding forwards, and often balancing on one leg. Although no one wants a Nordic touring ski that is too long (ie too "long" for one's weight and/or technique)- IMHO there is NOTHING gained from a "short" ski in the context of your inteded tur.
............
What ski would I take on your intended tur?
For me- mandatory criteria:
- directionally stable→ long load-bearing/glide surface, with little sidecut
- longitudinal stability→ long, stiff flex
- steel edges
- kicker skin insert
- raised Nordi tip
- flexible tip and/or low-profile Nordic rockered-shovel*
- smooth wax base**

*If you anticiapte lots of hard frozen snow-ice ridges/rubble- then some flexibility to the shovel- or a slightly rockered shovel- will facilitate the ski going up and over this crap/crud. Rocker is certainly the most effective design in this context- but be cautious. Too much rocker and the ski will have no directional stability (eg Ingstad/Sverdrup/E109/TN82) on hardpack; and it will be a complete f'in nightmare in breakable crust. Ski designs like the Gamme 54 (and reports suggest the Ousland as well) have about as much rocker as one can get away with here...However- when it comes to breakable crust- NO rocker is the bomb (eg Amundsen).

**My impression is that waxless-scaled bases are getting some attention and application in polar expeditions (eg Amundsen WL/Transnordic 66 Crown). I am assuming that this is for "spring-like" conditions where temperatures rise above freezing during the day and waxless scales get some grip- especially if one is doing some light touring from basecamp in the warm part of the day? Dunno. But, if I was expecting warm wet snow on the tur- I might consider a scaled ski over a wax base...

Some examples of skis that I think fit the above criteria:

Wax base:
- Asnes Amundsen/Liv BC
- Asnes Gamme 54 BC
- Asnes Ousland BC
- Fischer Transnordic 66 Tour
- Madshus Panorama T55

Scaled ("waxless") base:
- Anses Amundsen Fram WL
- Fischer Transnordic 66 Crown (FINALLY WITH EASY-SKIN INSERT!!!)
- Fischer Traverse 78 Crown*
- Fischer Traverse 88 Crown*

*The Fischer 78/88 are much wider and more compact than the other skis above- heavier and slower- but wider. Note that the Fischer 78/88 are both more stable in deep snow- and better in crust- than the lighter and faster TN66...

HOWEVER-
If I thought I might encounter some sweet open hills to play on enroute-
I would strongly consider:
- Asnes Combat NATO
- Asnes Nansen
Both of these skis will not be as efficient overland as the skis above- but WAAAAY more fun playing on some hills close to camp!!
I would also strongly consider these skis- especially the Nansen- if I was anticipating having to come down steep icy hills/trails...
And the Combat NATO- especially if I might expect some heavy snowfall on the tur...(the Fischer 78/88 would also cover this)
Note- the Nansen is a better downhill ski- the Combat NATO is a more efficient XC ski.

But- note that of thess skis above, those that are longitudinally-stable (Amundsen/Gamme/Ousland)- are also stable and break-trail effectively if you encounter a heavy, soft snowfall (though not as tuned for deep soft snow as other designs- such as the Combat NATO; Fischer 88).
..............
Other ski stuff that I would have to have with me:
- kicker skins (nylon and mohair)
- full-length skins
- grip/kick wax and tools (cork;scraper)
- skin wax
- binding repair/replacement kit
.......
Very exciting Ernst!!! Wish I could come with you!
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

To clarify- choose a touring ski length that is just right fir your weight/skill and intended use. But, all other things being right- "short" skis are less stable than "long" skis.
You don't want to stuggle with pressuring the ski for both grip and control-
but, you want the ski to release when you stride forwards.

[tkarhu]

Good points @lilcliffy. And an excellent point still from @fisheater that inadequate grip was probably behind the experience of instability in Hardangervidda.

I do still think short skis would bring some sense of control because they are easier to step turn. Yet average length skis with nylon for descents may be an even better compromise. If 99 % of route is almost flat, being systematic about putting on nylon x-skins for the last 1 % ie. all down- and uphills worth noting would probably pay off.

With the "nylon x-skin snow shoe" approach, on the flats average length XC skis could be nicer. Om the other hand, when going downhill with a pulk, nylon skins would bring more safety than slightly shorter skis.

When going downhill with a pulk, it is not nice when your skis want to go straight and you see that is not a way to go. Then you are like a train driver who sees that you will be soon crashing, but who has no opportunity to stop.

Then, an easy step turn would be nice to have, and short skis would give that. But that only unless you haven’t transformed your skis to snowshoes with nylon x-skins, or have some other good strategy for downhill safety. For example, I have a meter long chain connected to the pull ropes of my Paris pulk. I throw the chain under your pulk, when going downhill. That is a common DIY pulk brake in the Finnish survival guild.

[Musk Ox]

Maybe I should rephrase my questions more specifically.

Am I right in assuming that in the conditions described above (no fresh snow expected, thin & icy snowcover crumbled by snowmobiles) a wider, shorter ski would give a beginner more "easy" stability (at the expense of speed & efficiency)?

Ernst! You'll want stiffer and longer.

I've skied in similar conditions in northern Norway and Greenland (although never anything as gorgeously ambitious as you're proposing) and on snow on ice you're going to want skis built for cruising and mohair/ mixed skins underneath for the levels and the option of something nylon for the hills.

I think manoeuvrability's going to take a very firm back seat to mile-crushing.™ The pleasure in this exercise is the miles. There are no trees where you're going, just deceptively far mountains to navigate by. You're not going to be dodging much at velocity that you can't avoid.

You're not going to be dancing downhill with a pulk, and length isn't going to confer any massive disadvantage when you want to slow down and be cautious with a load behind you. Step turns will be more difficult. @tkarhu has some excellent advice there above. In my experience it's not a massive issue. Albeit I fall down as a speed strategy.

On the morning of literally the second full day, you're going to be used to the length and it will be awesome. Length confers stability, and when your knees are shaky you're going to be very glad indeed for directionally true skis you can mechanically point towards point x (well, I would/ am).

I'd go for longer and narrower, Åsnes Amundsen, Fischer Transnordic 66, Åsnes Ousland, Åsnes Gamme. Even the Åsnes Holmenkollen/ MR48 has been to the poles. Speaking of poles, I'd take fixed-length aluminium poles that won't break. I'd take like four pairs of skins, longer mohair and mixed ones, a longer pair for backup and a sharp knife to stab seals in the face with, or a short club if you're trad, and a musk ox horn for communicating with my people.

[tkarhu]

@Musk Ox Oh I had totally forgotten the club, the norsaq. Great point

[Krummholz]

Just another point….

SKI LENGTH IS DETERMINED BY YOUR WEIGHT. Don’t let anyone (sales person) tell you need a ski longer than what your weight determines. If it is longer for a heavier weight you won’t be able to set the grip zone under your foot as you shift your weight from one ski to the other. If it is shorter than recommended it might have less glide. Once you put skins on it won’t matter as much. The length of the skins will be more important, you don’t want the skins to go past the back of the grip zone, you might need to trim them. If it is icy, you will want the skins on. If you have them on most of the time the tails might start coming loose. It might be helpful to have some self drilling pan head screws along. The awl on a multi tool can be used to get a hole started. Or you can just walk until the snow/ice on the glue melts off. Putting them under your jacket helps.

[mca80]

Just another point….

SKI LENGTH IS DETERMINED BY YOUR WEIGHT. Don’t let anyone (sales person) tell you need a ski longer than what your weight determines. If it is longer for a heavier weight you won’t be able to set the grip zone under your foot as you shift your weight from one ski to the other. If it is shorter than recommended it might have less glide.

Not true so far as I know. Although not ideal, technique can allow a person to compress the camber on a ski that is too large, but most certainly a ski too short won't glide as well.

[Sidney Dunkin]

Hi Ernst, great adventure you have planned. Good luck and have fun.

I’m not sure a mile crushing stiff XC camber ski will be the most efficient pulling that heavy sled. I think you may be better served with a more versatile ski like the Nansen. Have you calculated how fast you need to move to achieve you daily mileage goals. My guess is you won’t be going fast, maybe 4-5 km/hour and won’t realize the benefits of a stiff double camber ski. I would go for stability, ease in climbing and better downhill control, even if that is just snow plowing. Thats my 2 cents.

[Musk Ox]

Hi Ernst, great adventure you have planned. Good luck and have fun.

I’m not sure a mile crushing stiff XC camber ski will be the most efficient pulling that heavy sled. I think you may be better served with a more versatile ski like the Nansen. Have you calculated how fast you need to move to achieve you daily mileage goals. My guess is you won’t be going fast, maybe 4-5 km/hour and won’t realize the benefits of a stiff double camber ski. I would go for stability, ease in climbing and better downhill control, even if that is just snow plowing. Thats my 2 cents.

My Nansens and my Lundhags are the things I'd save if my house burned down... and even so, Monsieur Dunkin, I think I'd prefer to do an expedition-type tour on something with less sidecut and a bit more Gamme/ Transnordic in it. They're kind of designed for those specific conditions... but certainly a lot depends on the terrain and the snow...

@Ernst R says there's a 'few hilly sections' but it's mostly lakes and old frozen snow, and to me I think weighing the balance between cruising and climbing, stiffer and straighter is the way to go.

I only really know the Åsnes skis, but I think the Gamme and the Ousland are not the worst skis in the world to come downhill with, and probably a good compromise over the Amundsen for the hills.

On the other hand, when you're knackered, Nansens are just pure autopilot and there's a lot to be said for that. They track straight enough and they're fast enough and on the way down they're more forgiving and reassuring.

But it's 160km! On late-winter snow, mostly on the flats following snowmobile highways? Ooh, I suspect I'd like a pair of Ouslands or something.

Edit: @Ernst R, what are the hills like? Is it steep and frozen snowmobile stuff and ice like in the picture?