Trail breaking ski

[Krummholz]

The only problem with the Koms might be that they are a downhill oriented xcD ski. Could be squirrely and hard to keep going in a straight line. To really be able to float on powder you need more square inches under foot. Like Corlay wrote “ But another lust of mine is the Peltonen Metsä Step BC, which is a "Finnish Forest Ski", zero side-cut, and extremely long at up to 270cm. The philosophy here is a) fairly wide under foot (~70mm) and b) REALLY long for flotation in deep, soft snow.”. I think the trade offs of float is drag (more force to maintain speed) and ski weight (more force needed to push more mass). The USGI is a heavy ski, you definitely don’t want to be trying to keep lifting them up like snowshoeing. That might be why you like the Ingstads. Easier to push. For 6” or less I prefer my E99s, 65mm X 200 cm, and light, easy to move even when completely under the snow. Sometimes it’s letting the ski try to surface during the forward kick before shifting weight on it. Or just pushing through it at a speed that can be maintained.

[timpete]

While a lot of us, including myself, have recommended 210 cm USGIs, the OP is definitely right that any sort of herringbone climbing in powder with the USGIs is a BEAR. You will be sweating in 5 min, even if 10-below F. (Which, you need to manage carefully when it's 10-below.) They are heavy skis, it's a lot of work to lift the tips out of the snow when herringbone climbing.

Some people on here recommend polar waxing the entire ski, which I don't do. I kickwax the kickzone like one would do for track nordic skis. Maybe full length polar would allow striding up a steeper incline before needing to switch to herringbone technique.

To a certain degree, I'm not sure there's a right answer to this question. For rolling terrain in deep light forest powder, I guess that snowshoes maybe the right choice - there's a reason why North America natives used snowshoes, not skis! There are two regimes that skis work well in deep powder: steady uphill, with climbing skins, and very flat terrain, like snowed in lakes and bogs etc. The middle terrain, rolling small hills in deep powder is tough because you require herringbone technique, which is awfully exertion-heavy in powder. That is where I'd say snowshoes shine. But, USGIs with full length skins is basically a type of snowshoe...

[dave52]

The only problem with the Koms might be that they are a downhill oriented xcD ski. Could be squirrely and hard to keep going in a straight line. To really be able to float on powder you need more square inches under foot. Like Corlay wrote “ But another lust of mine is the Peltonen Metsä Step BC, which is a "Finnish Forest Ski", zero side-cut, and extremely long at up to 270cm. The philosophy here is a) fairly wide under foot (~70mm) and b) REALLY long for flotation in deep, soft snow.”. I think the trade offs of float is drag (more force to maintain speed) and ski weight (more force needed to push more mass).maintained.

Great point, the Kom's dimensions are 124 / 110 / 122, I was hoping the less pronounced sidecut (compared to most wide skis) might be okay, but uneducated guess, there's also no center groove obviously too. Anyone able to speak to Kom's XC tracking ability?

The USGI is a heavy ski, you definitely don’t want to be trying to keep lifting them up like snowshoeing. That might be why you like the Ingstads. Easier to push. For 6” or less I prefer my E99s, 65mm X 200 cm, and light, easy to move even when completely under the snow. Sometimes it’s letting the ski try to surface during the forward kick before shifting weight on it. Or just pushing through it at a speed that can be maintained.

Thank you for the tip too, I'll definitely give this a try

[fisheater]

I have the new FT Xplore, I haven’t had it in deeper than a foot. It breaks trail fine. It does have rocker, but the ski is longitudinally stiff and fully supportive. It kicks and glides well. It’s really light, turns well. It is a really good ski. I’m 190 plus a pack, and the 196 suits me fine.
What I don’t quite understand, is you problem with the Ingstad. I’ve never seen one in person, so I don’t know, but I thought they were deep snow XCd machines. Do you care to elaborate?

[riel]

I have the new FT Xplore, I haven’t had it in deeper than a foot. It breaks trail fine. It does have rocker, but the ski is longitudinally stiff and fully supportive. It kicks and glides well. It’s really light, turns well. It is a really good ski. I’m 190 plus a pack, and the 196 suits me fine.
What I don’t quite understand, is you problem with the Ingstad. I’ve never seen one in person, so I don’t know, but I thought they were deep snow XCd machines. Do you care to elaborate?

The Ingstad works great for me as a trail breaking ski in fresh snow.

It is rumored to have some issues with breakable crust, where the rockered tip can ride on top of the crust, and the middle of the ski will sink in, resulting in the ski being at a steeper angle than the slope you are climbing and the general annoyance that comes with that.

However, every XC ski is going to be terrible to some extent in breakable crust, either because the tip is floating on top, or because the entire ski has carved a channel for itself in the crust and now you're stuck in that channel. The Asnes USGI ski breaks trail through breakable crust fine, but it is an absolutely atrocious turner, and weighs 2-3x as much as a modern XC ski. Mayby not the right tradeoff for relatively rare snow conditions?

[dave52]

What I don’t quite understand, is you problem with the Ingstad. I’ve never seen one in person, so I don’t know, but I thought they were deep snow XCd machines. Do you care to elaborate?

Sensible question for sure. 6'2" 195lbs (geared up over 200-205lbs definitely) Ingstad 195cm WL. It's my first season with the Ingstads, mostly taken out on trails packed down at some point by something (snowshoes, snowmobile, road etc), and they work great with some form of snow settling, and < 6-8" of fresh over.

However I did 2x treks into deep fresh snow, ~12"+ fresh on top of 20" residual, and had higher expectations for float and kick and glide. The experience was like snowshoeing, stepping forward, sinking in several inches, high stepping out, repeat. I tried pushing forward through (sort of K&G motion) after stepping in and down, and it felt like skiing uphill slightly and then sinking, so opted to snowshoe through. I was hoping to not sink in quite as much, perhaps I'm oversized for my Ingstads in these conditions? Or reality check, breaking trails just requires more effort than I presumed? FWIW I still am enjoying them in these scenarios, but that feeling of gliding is magic, so if I can increase that by leveraging another ski, hell yes!

We've had an uncharacteristic winter, in terms of snowstorms piling up lots of snow in short periods of time, normally it's spread out and has time to settle and bat down by the sun.

Not sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree, in pursuing a wider ski like the Kom considering my use of it would likely be 70% XCBC deep snow in flat to rolling terrain, 30% downhill. The shorter length on the Kom, 174cm, might be an added bonus for bushwhacking through forest.

[Stephen]

Or reality check, breaking trails just requires more effort than I presumed?

I would say, “Yes, probably.”

And, yes, you are short on the Ingstad. I am maybe 200# ready to ski and ski the Ingstad in 205 and happy with that.
But in deep snow, it’s still pretty much like it is for you.
And, I have found the Ingstad unpleasant in breakable crust, and would prefer a ski with less tip rocker / a firmer tip.

[fisheater]

@dave52 you’re definitely in my weight class, so yes those Ingstad must be too short. I’m on a 210 Gamme.

Now here’s a question, when you climb in powder to you ever get snow sticking ? Because when I climb in powder I usually get a little snow stick. When I get to the top, I rub the skis clean, and continue skiing. I know I’ve skied going straight up, where other people herring bone. When I get to the top, I don’t give anything up on glide.
I know it is Nordic magic from all my clean living in my youth! Full length polar, and Rex Universal tar, might be it though.
I have a 200 USGI, there was a reason for ordering short, sharing with my son. If my 210 Gamme, my 196 Falketind X, or my Tindan 86 at 187 cm can’t cut it, I would try a Vector or a 210 NATO

Edit, I still would be surprised if my FT X was better than an Ingstad. I will say that the rocker of the FT X blends into it’s flex like there’s no rocker at all, just pure supportive arc. I’m well over 200, probably well over 210 with my pack.

[lowangle al]

Breaking trail, like climbing without skins, just requires a little patience and maybe an adjustment of expectations. In around 12 inches of snow you shouldn't have any problem with your current skis. Things get tough when the snow is knee deep or higher when on your skis.

[lilcliffy]

When you're breaking in a new trail what does your experience look like and with what ski?

Hi Dave,
Been loosely following this thread-

I have a number of BC-XC skis (i.e. fjellskis) that are excellent to very good breaking trail in deep soft snow- in order of most effective:

210 Asnes Combat NATO
210 Asnes MT65 (USGI Combat ski)*
205 Asnes Ingstad BC
208 Asnes Amundsen BC
210 Asnes Gamme 54 BC
199 Fischer 88

All of these skis have a longitudinally-stable flex, have traditional raised Nordic touring tips and not too much sidecut.

* I list the MT65 with a bit of hesitation for what is already mentioned- it is very heavy- so while it is remarkably stable in deep soft snow- it is not something I am going to pick up and do striding/step/jump turns in deep snow!

For reference I am 5'10" and 180lbs. From late Fall through Spring, we get almost continuous precipitation in the Central Hills. I am almost always breaking trail and many of my regular tours are loops, therefore I rarely get to ski on a broken out track (my wife and tur partners benefit from that!).

Breaking trail through 10-30cm of fresh snow on top of a consolidate base is the norm here- and there are at least several 40+cm dumps per season.

The Combat NATO is by far the most effective and efficient deep snow XC ski in that list above.
There have been at least two turs this winter in ~40+cm of fresh snow, where I have regretted taking the Ingstad over the NATO ski.
The Ingstad BC is remarkably stable in deep soft snow- making it perfectly acceptable as a deep snow XC ski- but the pressured-rockered profile of the ski in 3D snow make it less efficient than the NATO ski-
AND- I don't know that I have ever seen a XC carve a track through deep soft snow like the NATO ski.
The Ingstad is truly wonderous when you point them downhill- the rockered shovel encourages planing and facilitated turn initiation, making the Ingstad waaay more fun downhill skiing than the NATO ski.
That being said- the NATO absolutely crushes these other skis when it comes to striding and climbing in very deep soft snow- and it is still pretty good downhill (though it has a very wide turn radius).
..............
On a recent post storm 40+cm tour, I took the NATO ski, because are planned ~25km tour included an extended ski out a spectacular ravine-stream valley. The storm (Noreaster) had significant wind- there was ~60cm of powder blown into that ravine floor!!! There were several skiers (including two on Ingstad) on the tur and I led the way with the NATO ski. I traded off with the Ingstad a couple of times just to validate for myself and others that the NATO was the trail-breaking king! A couple of people commented that we might never have gotten out of there without it!
.................
The Amundsen and the Gamme 54 are remarkable stable in deep soft snow- the Amundsen with an edge, due to less sidecut.
.................
The Fischer 88 is also pretty good- though slower than the others. DISCLAIMER- I grip-wax the base of our 88- otherwise I cannot get enough grip in cold, deep soft snow....
..............
Which brings me to another question- how are you prepping/waxing your MT65(USGI) and your Ingstad WL?
In our local context- most skiers that are struggling in very deep snow first and foremost don't have enough grip.
(short, soft skis are a secondary problem)
...............
Beyond the list above→ the next level is a Finnish forest touring ski (i.e. ~70mm, no sidecut, 270cm+ long),
.............
On the subject of considering a wide short downhill touring ski-
There is no question that the Kom you are considering (I have one) will float higher in the snow column than any of these skis above. I grip-wax my Kom in order to get enough grip in deep soft cold snow as well as icy refrozen snow.
However, the Kom is short, rockered and surfy- it wants to turn- it does not track like a XC ski.
The Kom is also heavy.
I only use the Kom when I am out doing laps- looking for downhill lines- and I avoid taking them if I have an extended XC approach. They are very slow and heavyu.
...........
**As another note my 188 Storetind is remarkably stable in deep soft snow and offers as much flotation as my Kom (despite its much narrower waist). The Storetind is a much more efficient XC ski than the Kom.
However the Storetind does not offer the short-radius surfy, slarvy turns that the Kom does. The Storetind is best a downhill ski when you can point them down the fall line and open them right up and charge- they are VERY fast.
...........

As I don't know the terrain, cover and snow you are skiing in- it is hard for me to give you any "advice"...
I would suggest you try the Kom-
If you are moving slowly anyway in soft snow, then the heavy slow Kom might not be an issue for you...
Some people, REALLY want to float on top of the snow when they are XC skiing- the Kom would definitely give you that vs the Ingstad/USGI
...........
Personally, I am not very concerned about "float" when it comes to striding and climbing through deep soft snow- I am more concerned with stability, tip initiation, and grip-glide.
As an example- my 195 Annum floats higher in the snow column than my 210 NATO, but the NATO is by FAR the more efficient XC ski in deep soft snow.
..........
Hope I am being helpful!
Gareth