Do I want a Nansen or Gamme?

[Smitty]

Both in waxable. Nansen 205 cm, Gamme 210 cm.

Afraid I can't give meaningful input on the Ingstad/Nansen overlap - never handled Ingstads, let alone skied them. The best play might be to ski out the season with what you have, that'll give you a good idea of what you are missing (if anything) through your full season conditions.

On the Gamme/Nansen I should clarify my relative/absolute comments. I love the Gamme, it's my personal favourite ski. it's the ski I use most for my local conditions and what I like to do. Big smiles all the time, cruising pretty flat terrain without a whole lot of snow pack but consistent cold conditions. Best ski for me in absolute terms.

But with no specific use case, if I were to score the many characteristics of each ski in aggregate and then stack them up against each other, Nansen comes out ahead relative to the Gamme. Really, I guess, I'm saying the Nansen is a better "all around" ski. Even if Gamme is "better" for my specific niche.

Cheers

[oldschool]

So I screwed up and demo'd a pair of E109s two years back (possibly 3) and stupidly did not pull the trigger. I really liked them - floated in loose deep snow better than E99s, turned very nicely on a steep little hillock I tested them in untracked in several tele turns. Just liked them. I am not sure where I can get a pair now. I would prefer waxable I think which is what I had demo'd. For the Asnes skis and for those who have skied the 109s too, it looks like the Nansens are a good choice - how do the two compare to one another? Thanks - again I'm thinking to mount these with Voile removable cable binding, and use either Fischer BCX675 or Scarpa T4.

Separately - I've found my Scarpa T2s to be comfortable but my toes tend to get a bit cold. I have decent room and most of the time they are fine. Do folks find Thinsulated boots like BCX675 or Alaskas to be warmer - I'm thinking so but I've not had my thinsulated boots out for a long day really.

Thx

[Musk Ox]

Stephen, on this question of correct length, @The GCW has a good point, especially (as I understand it) with the Gamme, where appropriate sizing and skill seem to be factors in really getting them to do what they're capable of.

But it's worth acknowledging that these skis only come in 10cm increments. If you're on the very border, like me, that might mean you’re required to do a little chin stroking.

I went for the longer skis: I nearly always have a backpack and my experience choosing the shorter MR48s led to me be a wee bit sceptical of the sizing charts. So far I’m really glad I did.

Haven't tested them walking up hills yet, though... It's probably the climbs that'll make me wish there was a 195... but there are skins...

[fisheater]

If we are talking Gamme size, I weigh 190 lbs / 86 kg right in the middle of 200 cm on the Åsnes chart. I am 5’ 9” so I know my height doesn’t move me up the chart.
I definitely do not need a shorter ski. Gareth is lighter than myself skiing a 210

[lilcliffy]

@The GCW
Excellent post ↑ and good info on the paper test with the 180cm Gamme 54 at ~150lbs.
(Please consider posting this report in the Gamme 54 review.)
I certainly think that a true wax pocket is going to lead to grip problems on steep terrain when BC touring- and especially in deep or icy conditions.

For reference I weigh 178lbs (without gear) and squash the camber of the 210cm Gamme 54 with skis evenly weighted.
The Asnes weight recommendations would put me on the 190-200cm Gamme.
If I was going to use the Gamme as a dowhill-oriented ski (i.e. oldschool Telemark ski) then I would definitely choose the shorter length so that I "might" bend it into a carving arc. I say "might" because the Gamme has a very stiff stable, full-length flex- it does not want to bend into an arc...
If I wanted a ski in this width-range for downhill-oriented skiing I would choose the Nansen over the Gamme 54- its flex is clearly more tuned towards being pressured into an arc.

As far as whether one goes shorter or longer- the "right" answer to this is very individual, as well as fundamentally influenced by the environmental context of the skiing- snow conditions, terrain, tree-cover, etc.

For what I am using the Gamme 54 for I would not want a ski shorter than 210cm- and I continously point them down steep trails!

However- I would not want a truly effective wax pocket on a BC touring ski in hilly/steep terrain. I have MANY times seen ligher skiers struggle climbing hills on my 210cm Gamme/E99- as well as my 205cm E109.

Assuming that the wax pocket is not an issue- I personally do not see the point of a "short" Gamme 54. To fully take advantage of what this ski has to offer- I would highly recommned choosing a Gamme 54 at the length-limit of being able to squash its camber underfoot.

I hadn't considered whether a longer touring ski makes me sexier- but a longer ski offers greater stability and glide efficiency.

[lilcliffy]

I disagree (in bold, I disagree)

too bushed to write a treatise. Short: The FT62 is a not a XC ski and I not reference it as such. Some may use it as a XC ski, but it's not a XC ski in the traditional sense. I can use AT gear and Atomic Bent Chetlers and go XC skiing, sure. But that doesn't make it a XC ski.

Totally agree here. The FT62 isn't a XC ski. I am just struggling with this ski a little bit- in the sense that I really only enjoy it when the conditions are ideal...I am awaiting your downhill review of the Nansen- but my gut is telling me I would use the FT62 even less for my local skiing if I had a Nansen...

[lowangle al]

By xc ski do you mean dbl camber or is there something else?

[lilcliffy]

So, I wonder where the current Ingstads would fall on this chart? Between the Combat NATO and Gamme?

The current Ingstad BC would land just below the Nansen on the Y-axis- and just to the left of the Nansen on the X-axis,- with a bigger red circle around it!
Would need to increase the scale of the graph to fit the Ingstad BC.
In general- part experience- part intuition:
- the Nansen a bit easier to turn than the Ingstad (except perhaps in deep snow)
- the Nansen a faster XC ski than the Ingstad (except in deep snow)
- the Ingstad BC just as stable as the Combat Nato-Ingstad
- the Ingstad BC easier to turn than the Combat Nato-Ingstad
- the Combat Nato-Ingstad a faster XC ski than the Ingstad BC

Interesting that Gamme rates the Combat Nato-Ingstad as a faster XC ski than the Nansen- and look at how much faster a XC ski he rated the Gamme 54 (compared to the Nansen).

I would have put an even smaller red circle around the E109...
Interesting how he rates the E109 as even easier to turn than the Nansen!

DUH- just woke up! I don't need a Nansen- at all.
I own the E109 Xtralite Tour and Crown!!!
Doh...
I am sure that I would use a Nansen more than the E109- becasue of its more stable flex. BUT- that doesn;t matter when I have a Gamme 54 and an Ingstad in my quiver.

@lilcliffy
Here is Gareth calling me out for having LOTS of skis! Ha.

Sorry to mislead you- no I am not! Buy both the Gamme and the Nansen!

I am wondering if there is some overlap in the Nansen / Ingstad?
Again, I am surprised by how much I am using and enjoying the Ingstad.

Ingstad BC more narrowly tuned towards deep snow than the Nansen. Nansen more versatile.
You must have lots of soft snow to tour on if oyu are enjyoing the Ingstad- correct?

"But if you are looking for an archetypal Western Spring Corn Nordic tourin ski- isn't that a ...?"
And then I was hoping you were going to tell me which ski that is!

"But if you are looking for an archetypal Western Spring Corn Nordic tourin ski- isn't that a waxless-scaled ski?"
"Why would this be a wax touring ski and not a scaled ski?"
Yes, as right as you may be, the Gamme is not available in "waxless," and the Nansen is not readily available in NA this year in waxless. But someone here (@Woodserson) told me "It's time to start embracing The Klister."
Anyway, it seems for spring snow klister or skins might work fine. Not as convenient as waxless, I know.

Remember that you gotta remove kilster/soft wax before slapping on a skin.
XCd ski for consolidated corn? Traverse 78 or E99 Crown Xtralite.
Asnes needs to work on the waxless scale design I am thinking...
My spring snow is too unstable for the soft shovel of the E99 Crown Xtralite to really shine.
If that western mtn spring corn is like I remember it...The E99 Crown Xtralite would be a dreamy XCd ski in that context...WTF- why is Fischer not putting the Easy-Skin insert in the damn E99 Crown?

But, seriously, are you saying neither the Gamme or Nansen for spring corn snow? Not sure if I read that right.
If so, confusing after watching Pål Trygve Gamme ski both skis on spring snow?
And, if you did mean neither, which ski would that be, then?

Gamme is downhill skiing on spring snow- not XC skiing on spring snow- and if he is- I bet he is using the kicker skin- not klister/soft wax...

I'm tempted to click "Buy" on the Gammes...
(But don't let that stop further comment!)

Why the Gamme and not the Nansen?

[lilcliffy]

I totally agree with Woods RE: versatility of the Nansens, and the overall comparison (loved the video analogy!).

Without a specific use case listed my pick has to be Nansen over Gamme. Gamme is faster on flat / firm, Nansen is way easier to steer with less energy expense on the climb (assuming both in recommended length for skier weight). I love both. But where/how I ski, the Nansen wins out in relative terms.

ie There is a narrower gap between Nansen's flat touring performance relative to the superior Gamme than the Gamme control/climbing performance relative to the superior Nansen.

In absolute terms, I will still likely get more use out of the Gamme because most of my skiing is longer distance cruised on relatively flat packed out / wind scoured trails, across lakes, creeks, etc.

This illustrates exactly my point- and begs my original question- what kind if tur are you looking to do with the Nansen vs Gamme 54?!?

As Smitty states- he loves the Nansen and re-affirms that it is easier to climb and turn- but he admits that he will use the Gamme 54 more because of his local skiing context.

[lilcliffy]

Nice comments @Smitty
This is where I get hung up — trying to thread the needle on those two, how to weigh the characteristics of the two against how I think I will use them.
I haven’t skied the Nansen, so don’t know for sure, but it seems like there is some similarity between the Nansen and Ingstad (which I already have). So, could I be happy with the Ingstad, sort of in place of the Nansen, and then go with the Gamme? Also, while one (you, me, anyone) might like the Nansen better, if the Gamme is going to get used more, due to better match to use, it seems like that should count for something.
Are your skies wax or waxless?

In deep soft snow- the Nansen will be redudant- compared to the Ingstad BC.
In variable snow conditions- the Nansen will not be redundant- compared to the Ingstad BC.