DEEP Snow Touring Ski

[Lhartley]

Would people have been able to ski those conditions 30 years ago though? I tried to ski my guides in conditions like in this video here last year and it was an OK day to be in the backcountry but my skis did not float me I. The depth of snow for the incline it was sitting on.

[fisheater]

Would people have been able to ski those conditions 30 years ago though? I tried to ski my guides in conditions like in this video here last year and it was an OK day to be in the backcountry but my skis did not float me I. The depth of snow for the incline it was sitting on.

205 skis, mid 70’s underfoot. The ski would be supportive, but bow. Keep speed up and the bow drives to the surface, unweight and turn the other way. Trying to cross the fall line is an exercise in futility. Point the skis downhill.

[Lhartley]

My Guides are admittedly short at 185 (I'm 6', 205 lb) as I'm new to the freeheel turn and focused on that. In the AT world absolutely nobody's running 205s, they run 115+ in that kind of conditions. Such a different world but I'm learning a bunch thanks yo you all

[Theme]

Do people over there use waxable forest skis or mostly skin/scales? And how do you properly size them for one's weight, I couldn't find anything and I believe the Metsa comes in 230, 250 and 270. On the other hand, while our landscape here is probably similar to central Finland it isn't often that we have such huge dumps where theres 100cm of really soft snow. At what point, what amount of powder, does the really large surface area of a forest ski become necessary vs a nato or the like?

While I am not yet 100% done with my testing (missing about 4 models of skis), I can with certainty say that most people do not think a single thought about their skiing equipment or snow composition. Which leads to misleading reviews. People buy a ski and ski it to the grave over here.

I have found that 40-45cm powder is the line where one would benefit from longer skis than 210cm or any length shorter than that.

But it is not absolutely clear to me yet, where the line goes in regards to overall efficiency. One should not jump straight to a 300cm ski, that is for sure.

250cm ski is the longest ski that can still be maneuvered somewhat agile downhill. Any longer than that, and it becomes almost impossible. I cannot get enough torque from my knees.

And then there is one more thing. Peltonen Metsä Step is significantly lighter than Metsä Skin.

And in Järvinen Lapponia, 210-260cn skis are made with Cap construction, meaning they are significantly lighter than 280 and 300 lengths, which are almost identical in weight. So if one would go long, better go longest. Or as a compromise settle for 270 Metsä Step to cut down on weight and fit skis in cars better.

There can be up to 500g variance per ski in between pairs of skis at which does affect this consideration a bit. Typically only up to 250 ish grams difference.

Karhu Erä is the lightest forest ski around, but they are very sparse and have not been manufactured for years. And the waxable seems to have disappeared, leaving only Optigrip and scale bases.

Peltonen discontinued their waxable model a few years back. Järvinen seems to have the only waxable forest skis. By the way, quite a few people ski wooden skis made by Ylönen or Vilminko

Both Peltonen and Järvinen have positive sidecut. Peltonen tracks way better on hard bases, as it is a bit less of an elongated oval shape compared to Järvinen Lapponia. But Järvinen rides best in deep powder due to extremely sensitive tip that cuts through then snow.

KSF Scout is also another consideration, they are quite light, have sidecut and scale base, come at 230cm. They can change a thing or two in my recommendations when I have the chance to get a pair.

Normally I do not recommend anything under 250cm for almost anyone if the idea is to ski off track in deep snow. 250 is a good length to start, as they are light, maneuverable and give good flotation.

270, 280 and 300 become hard to maneuver and will not be efficient on solid snow if there are some hard layers in the snow, as they are about 400-500g heavier per ski compared to 250cm skis (except Metsä Skin which is heavy at 250). For people over about 80kg and over, 250 starts to be on the short end if one would want max flotation. Though, for anyone wanting max flotation they should go for 300cm. One just has to choose where they ski.


I really, really wish they start making forest skis with light (Karhu, Järvinen) waxable bases but with skin inserts underfoot.

[Lo-Fi]

If it’s touring for turns in soft snow, the magic really starts to happen at >90mm underfoot, like Summit cone vagabond Waxless 97mm or Altai Kom 98mm or voile v6 bc 96mm.

If you want extra float go a little longer like 174cm or 178cm. For a touring ski that turns, I wouldn’t go much longer unless you’re bigger than average or skiing big mountain style.

My Koms float way more than Guides/Objective dimension skis on flats and essentially levitate you to virtual weightlessness as you descend.

[JB TELE]

Are we talking about touring on flat terrain or are we talking about hilly/mountainous terrain?
Fishscales are pretty useless in deep, fresh powder. Using blue kick wax with a dedicated deep ski makes more sense.
There are plenty of lightweight, backcountry powder skis out there. A friend of mine is a tele skier and he raves about the Armada Locator series of skis for tele skiing in powder. They come in a bunch of different widths. They don't have a lot of sidecut and he says that makes them really stable in powder. Really easy to pivot around in powder.

In the really super deep days, where even the widest skis are covered in snow while touring, I feel like nordic camber doesn't help. What do you all think?

[Krummholz]

The people of the Altai use long, fat, skin covered skis to hunt in deep snow.

IMG_0768.jpeg[/attachment [attachment=0]IMG_0769.jpeg

[mca80]

Thanks @Theme, @tkarhu, very informative posts. Sorry @JohnSKepler for derailing to deep snow FLAT discussion.