Karhu 10th Mountain Tour; the "Catamount Class" design profile; and the quest for a mile-crushing deep snow ski

[bgregoire]

Buda, are those waxable? That would be a sweet surprise!

[Buda]

Yes, waxable.

[Slimfinn]

Hello Slimfinn!

I have not yet mounted the Tour 10th Mtn yet- I need to get some bindings for them.

You have the waxless version? Onnitrack? What length? Are they the same dimensions as the one I have (there were a number of very different "Tour 10th Mtn" skis over the years)? What do you think of them?

We have the Epoch/XCD 10th Mountain in a number of different lengths- it is a VERY different ski than the Tour 10th Mtn that I have- the flex and camber is MUCH softer and rounder. I gave up trying to like the Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn many years ago- I don't like it any snow context. I much prefer the wider, floatier Guide/Annum in deep soft snow- and both the Epoch and the Annum are useless on consolidated snow.

The Epoch was my growing son's favorite hill-country, soft-snow touring ski for several years-he is now too heavy for them. He is beginning to get turned on to grip wax and has been going back and forth between the Eon Wax and E109 Tour this winter. Though he did try my new Asnes Falketind recently- I am not be able to get those back from him...My son loves to ski steep tight lines through the woods- but, he is now coming on my longer tours and simply cannot keep up with the pace on a ski like the Epoch...

Lilcliffy, yes they are the waxless omnitrack, same dimensions and metallic purple as yous 188cm long. I like them for what I do, use the mostly just trekking around thru the mountains roads and rolling hills breaking my own trail as much as possible, they travel pretty well, good grip for going upslope but haven't done anything really steep with them. The other pair i have but hardly use are Karhu XCD GT Kinetics 62,54,59 215's. Girls are starting to slow their growing speed so starting to outfit them better. I'll post a pic of the family quiver in the pictures pictures

[lilcliffy]

I am almost 100% positive that I have skied those Dorados- many years ago...Don't they have a traditional single camber with a soft round flex? If the flex is like I remember they are more like the Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn than they are the Tour 10th Mtn...

[lilcliffy]

LC, having tried out my new Ingstads 200 (older version) last night, I am very very impressed. Comparing the older 10th MTN tour with it, man, their sidecut profiles are sooo similar. A single Ingstad 200cm ski weighs 150g less than a 10th Mtns tour 189cm! Yes, its a woodcore too. On snow, they are obvioulsy both deep snow nordic skis and tend to skid off to the side on flat hardpack. Both turn quite well for nordic skis on the down although, from what I remember, the 10Mtn 189s are a little easier to turn, most probably due to their softer uniform camber and shortness. The Ingstad obviously has a double camber, though surely not as stiff as the Amundsen in a same length for example.

I'm currently thinking there is a lot of overlap between these two skis. I doubt the karhus will be on my feet much now given their extra weight.

I must admit I felt like a viking knight when wearing Ingstads and Sydpolens.

Very cool.
You now have these two skis to help me resolve something...

Having only a memory of skiing the 68mm Tour 10th Mtn- the flex of the 180cm ski I have confirms my memory- the supportive flex of the 68mm Tour 10th Mtn makes it very stable when XC skiing in soft deep snow- is this true?

As a broken-record comparison- the very soft, roundish Epoh/XCD 10th Mtn is completely unstable when XC skiing in deep snow.

I used to think/consider that the primary instability with skis like the Eon/XCD GT and E109 Xtralite was due to their waspy waists- and that they would be much better with less sidecut and a 68mm waist like the Tour 10th Mtn...
Then I got the Combat Nato- which also has a waspy waist- and realized that the primary problem is as much or more the flex pattern than it is the waspy waist...The 62mm Combat Nato is MUCH more stable and supportive in deep, soft snow than the 62mm Eon and 60mm E109.

And for comparison- the 62mm Combat Nato is more stable and supportive in deep, soft snow than the 68mm Epoch..

So- my question- do you think your 62mm Ingstad/Combat Nato is as stable and supportive in deep snow as your 68mm Tour 10th Mtn?

If so- I already have the ski I was looking for- 210cm Combat Nato. I was out on a 5km hilly tour on the Combat today in 30+cm of cold fluffy powder, with 1.5m of stable, multi-layered base below. They were amazing.

If the 62mm Ingstad/Combat Nato is as effective a deep snow XC ski as the 68mm Tour 10th Mtn- then the only step up would be a very long Finnish forest ski...

On another note- what is the camber profile like on your Ingstad? You mentioned it as double-camber...
The resistant camber underfoot of my Combat Nato is very close to the E109 Xtralite (i.e. softer than the E99), but the Combat Nato has a significantly lower-profiled camber than the E109...

[Buda]

I am almost 100% positive that I have skied those Dorados- many years ago...Don't they have a traditional single camber with a soft round flex? If the flex is like I remember they are more like the Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn than they are the Tour 10th Mtn...

Yes, they have a single camber that's easy to compress.

[bgregoire]

On another note- what is the camber profile like on your Ingstad? You mentioned it as double-camber...
The resistant camber underfoot of my Combat Nato is very close to the E109 Xtralite (i.e. softer than the E99), but the Combat Nato has a significantly lower-profiled camber than the E109...

LC, I have not had the chance to compare the two on snow back to back. Its going to be hard to do it right anyways as they are not the same length. But I will try!

The are the two older Ingstads, previous to the BC with rocker:

Mine is the older one on the left, where Ingstad almost looks like a cartoon caracter. This still is from 2010 or a little older. A well seasoned ski.

Its interesting to note that this version of the Ingstad has a flat base with no centre groove. It would be really interesting to compare skis with and without a groove. I'm guessing I am feeling its lack of groove while track to track striaght on flats with little snow. These skis turns weally well though!

My Ingstad definitely has more than a single camber. Its not really that low profile to me. You can squeeze out the first, or lets say most of the camber with a single hand, but you need to apply brute force to squish them completely flat. Hope that helps?

[lilcliffy]

Its interesting to note that this version of the Ingstad has a flat base, not center what-a-call-it hollowed out center line...What is the purpose of that anyways?

I was always told that a "track groove" helped a XC ski track straighter...I know they used to put track grooves on Downhill skis as well- not sure why in that context...

My Ingstad definitely has more than a single camber. Its not really that low profile to me. You can squeeze out the first, or most of tha camber with a single hand, but you need to apply brute force to squish them completely flat. Hope that helps?

Oh- both my Combat Nato and my Ingstad BC fit this description. What I meant is that- for example- my E-109 Xtralite is more cambered- despite the fact that the second-camber-resistance underfoot is very close between all three of these skis. As another comparison- the Eon is more cambered than the Combat Nato/Ingstad BC- close to the E-109- but that second-camber-resistance on the Eon is MUCH softer.

I know that there is some variability in terms of flex between pairs of Asnes' solid-wood-cored skis...BUT- all three of my sets- Combat Nato/Ingstad BC/Gamme 54 BC- have a lower profile initial camber (i.e. compared to their similar equivalents : Eon; E-109; E-99)- despite them all having very stiff, resistant second cambers. For example both my Gamme 54 and my E-99 are stiffer underfoot than the Ingstad/Combat Nato/E-109, but, the E99's intial camber is higher than the Gamme 54.

At first I wondered if this was just a quirk of the particular set of Combat Natos that I got- but, I have noticed this trend in all of the Asnes Fjellskis that I own...

[bgregoire]

Oh- both my Combat Nato and my Ingstad BC fit this description. What I meant is that- for example- my E-109 Xtralite is more cambered- despite the fact that the second-camber-resistance underfoot is very close between all three of these skis. As another comparison- the Eon is more cambered than the Combat Nato/Ingstad BC- close to the E-109- but that second-camber-resistance on the Eon is MUCH softer.

For your numerical pleasure, some number from my skis:

Camber height (between a pair of skis), absolutely uncompressed:
E99 195cm (older model, pre Xtralite): 43mm
Asnes Amundsen 201cm (pre half skin attachment era): 41.3mm
Asnes Ingstad 200cm (from approx. 2010): 48.8mm

[lilcliffy]

Hmmm...
Thanks Ben!
I shall have to measure my skis...

Perhaps it is "feel"- as in stiffness- not actual height...

All of my Asnes Fjellskis have a soft initial camber underfoot and then become just as resistant underfoot as their equivalent Fischer models (i.e. E99 vs Gamme 54; E109 vs Ingstad).

Was hand flexing them and standing on them before I went out to break trail with my Combat Nato...

I didn't take the time to measure them, but uncompresses they are all visually all close in terms of camber height...

BUT- here is where they are different- both the E109 and the E99 Xtralites have a stiffer initial camber- more uniform stiffness through their camber (the E109 being softer overall than the E99).

So that "low-profile" double-camber that I am feeling underfoot with the Asnes skis- that makes them easier to pressure- is a result of their softer initial camber- not camber height...