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

[LaplandPaul]

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 would not trust my TN66 with that and the lack of kick skins makes it harder to climb when tired and not paying attention to technique. Also skins should be nice on icy parts of the trail.

Would the Amundsen handle that better than the Nato too?

[LaplandPaul]

On the topic of Åsnes Amundsen:

How about the Amundsen Fram? My local ski shop sells it on a 50% discount... so 200$. I read it has a higher camber. Ignoring the obviouse difference of waxless vs waxable, how do the two skis compare otherwise? Would adding some kick-wax to the Fram make it similar or even better than the regular Amundsen?

[CwmRaider]

Would the Amundsen handle that better than the Nato too?

Would adding some kick-wax to the Fram make it similar or even better than the regular Amundsen?

If you want a quiver of two pairs of skis for mostly hut to hut touring in varying snow and terrain conditions you could do worse than the TN66 crown and Combat Nato combination.
The Nato is much more forgiving in steep terrain than the Amundsen. The latter is more efficient on flatter segments.
As you didn't quite like the waxless on the Ingstad i would completely stay away from the Fram WL regardless.

To be honest with yourself you probably don't need another pair of skis, you can do everything you described with your TN66. It may be sub optimal in some conditions but you cannot switch skis once you're on a hut to hut tour. So if you do get a second pair get skis you will enjoy using, your time on them is worth more than the difference in price of the skis IMO.
Getting to know their strengths and limitations is part of the fun The Combat Nato and Nansen are probably the best non rockered allround touring skis for mixed terrain. The Nansen is single camber and has a rounder flex, and will be less efficient than the Nato over distance, particularly in deeper snow. For your described use I'd suggest Combat Nato unless warm conditions favor the waxless pattern.

[lilcliffy]

Not sure it will help, but I can add a few less known alternatives to confuse or hopefully make you choose a suitable ski:
Rossignol BC100 Positrack and BC80 Positrack. Both are skis with more focus on crossing distances than turning and especially the BC100 got a good test in utemagasinet.no (9/10 points). Good luck.

These are indeed interesting skis (despite the traditional negativity towards Rossi BC-XC/XCD skis)-
(and I too was impressed with the UTE review)

we have a had a number of people join us on our local tours over the last couple of years on both the BC80 and the BC100.
These skis are completely different from past Rossi models (many of which were simply Fischer designs with a cheap base).

The BC100 is a completely unique design at the moment-
no rocker (!)- currently unique!
minimal sidecut 100-80-90mm

I was frankly amazed at how well these skis tracked when XC skiing on consolidated snow- even on completely tracked out icy snowmobile track!
They are soft, round flexing, and floaty.
Though they are very slow XC skis- they have very minimal single camber and are soft.

I personally would not want either of these skis due to the lack of a raised Nordic touring tip. The BC100 has the lowest profile tip I have ever seen on a Nordic touring ski. They are very poor trail-breakers. This is a deal breaker for me personally.

Regardless- they are pretty cool, reasonable priced, and might be ideal depending on the context.

[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 would not trust my TN66 with that and the lack of kick skins makes it harder to climb when tired and not paying attention to technique. Also skins should be nice on icy parts of the trail.

Would the Amundsen handle that better than the Nato too?

The Amundsen could certainly "handle" the conditions you describe (i.e. you could handle the Amundsen)- though the Amundsen might be a "handful" if you need to point them down steep tight trails!

The Combat NATO is more versatile than the Amundsen, and definitely more manageable and fun in steep terrain and deep snow.
The Amundsen is undoubtedly a more efficient straight-forward XC ski than the Combat NATO.

[lilcliffy]

On the topic of Åsnes Amundsen:

How about the Amundsen Fram? My local ski shop sells it on a 50% discount... so 200$. I read it has a higher camber. Ignoring the obviouse difference of waxless vs waxable, how do the two skis compare otherwise? Would adding some kick-wax to the Fram make it similar or even better than the regular Amundsen?

Check out this video review of the Amundsen Fram ski-

Clearly not significantly more cambered than the standard Amundsen (if Asnes claims it is- I believe them- but, the Amundsen Fram is clearly not a highly cambered ski)-
if Asnes claims that the Fram is stiffer and more cambered than the Amundsen- I believe them.

You can certainly grip wax the Fram WL.
I grip wax my Nansen WL- I am thrilled with the performance. It is ideal for cold fresh snow mornings that warm up above freezing in the afternoon- skiing on kick wax in the morning, getting grip on scales in the afternoon without having to apply soft kick wax- repeat the next day. Love it.

Fram WL will be slower than a smooth waxable base. This may not matter.

[lilcliffy]

Getting to know their strengths and limitations is part of the fun The Combat Nato and Nansen are probably the best non rockered allround touring skis for mixed terrain. The Nansen is single camber and has a rounder flex, and will be less efficient than the Nato over distance, particularly in deeper snow. For your described use I'd suggest Combat Nato unless warm conditions favor the waxless pattern.

Good stuff here.
And if you really want a second ski that is better suited to hilly terrain, but also want a scaled base- do consider the Nansen WL.
As far as scales- the Fischer 78 is another one to consider, but it is not as good in crust as the Nansen/Combat NATO/Amundsen.

[metamorphosis108]

Not sure it will help, but I can add a few less known alternatives to confuse or hopefully make you choose a suitable ski:
Rossignol BC100 Positrack and BC80 Positrack. Both are skis with more focus on crossing distances than turning and especially the BC100 got a good test in utemagasinet.no (9/10 points). Good luck.

These are indeed interesting skis (despite the traditional negativity towards Rossi BC-XC/XCD skis)-
(and I too was impressed with the UTE review)

we have a had a number of people join us on our local tours over the last couple of years on both the BC80 and the BC100.
These skis are completely different from past Rossi models (many of which were simply Fischer designs with a cheap base).

The BC100 is a completely unique design at the moment-
no rocker (!)- currently unique!
minimal sidecut 100-80-90mm

I was frankly amazed at how well these skis tracked when XC skiing on consolidated snow- even on compelely tracked out icy snowmobile track!
They are soft, round flexing, and floaty.
Though they are very slow XC skis- they have very minimal single camber and are soft.

I personally would not want either of these skis due to the lack of a raised Nordic touring tip. The BC100 has the lowest profile tip I have ever seen on a Nordic touring ski. They are very poor trail-breakers. This is a deal breaker for me personally.

Regardless- they are cool, reasonable priced and might be ideal depending on the context.

How would you compare BC100 to Madshus Panorama 78?

[lilcliffy]

How would you compare BC100 to Madshus Panorama 78?

More in common than they don't.
78 has more sidecut→ tighter turn radius; doesn't XC track as efficiently.
78 has a non-rockered, raised triangular Nordic tip→ breaks trail much more effectively.

[telerat]

Rossignol BC100 Positrack and BC80 Positrack

Thank you, great suggestions. Only thing that bothers me is the lack of a kick-skin attachment which makes the Fischers and Åsnes Nato more versatile I think. Madshus Panorama M62, M68 or M78 would also be comparable skis! The older vesions had also an Intelligrip feature on the M62 and M68 with short, attachable kick skins.

They seem to have a short skin, which I think goes from tip to behind heel: https://www.rossignol.com/ca_en/rkiw500-0000tu.html