Gamme vs Amundsen vs Ousland

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy is right about tip stiffness. I don't 'know' that the Ousland has a soft tip and I'd have no way to asses that even if I had one in my hands. I'm going solely on Asnes description which, is likely directed at people with enough experience to know what this statement really means - which I do not.

Did you get information directly from Asnes that the Ousland has a soft tip?

It's in their website description of the ski

Well- there you go!
Thank you for that! I was going off memories of Cristers posts.
I wonder if they mean the tip, the shovel or both?

[riel]

Did you get information directly from Asnes that the Ousland has a soft tip?

It's in their website description of the ski

Well- there you go!
Thank you for that! I was going off memories of Cristers posts.
I wonder if they mean the tip, the shovel or both?

"Soft" is relative, though.

The Gamme and Amundsen have really super stiff tips.

From Crister's posts in the past, it seems like the Ousland has tips of comparable stiffness to the Ingstad. Softer than Gamme and Amundsen, but not floppy by any stretch of the imagination.

[JohnSKepler]

What would be the pros and cons of this softer tip? Trail breaking? Crust breaking? Easier in the grooves? If I switched back and forth between a Gamme and an Ousland what would I notice that would be caused by the tip? I know thats a really specific question that ignores other parts of the ski. It’s all really fascinating and I wish I could just test skis and comment on it for a living!

[Crayefish]

What would be the pros and cons of this softer tip? Trail breaking? Crust breaking? Easier in the grooves? If I switched back and forth between a Gamme and an Ousland what would I notice that would be caused by the tip? I know thats a really specific question that ignores other parts of the ski. It’s all really fascinating and I wish I could just test skis and comment on it for a living!

For sure Lilcliffy will chime in on this one... he has a particular dislike of crust breaking underfoot due to a soft tip not breaking it ahead

I could reply properly, but it would only be 2nd hand info from Lilcliffy, so better to have the expert explain.

[Mikerj]

Amundsen…. While I can’t elaborate on the tech talk the Amundsen is my favorite all purpose xc-bc ski. I have many skis…. wider skis that turn and narrower skis that work better in track. But for an all rounder I like it best. Run it with voile 75mm 3 pins. Crispy Antarctic boots.

This is for ungrooomed trails in the Adirondacks. Tight stuff, and even if I could tele well there’s not much open terrain for that.

[lilcliffy]

What would be the pros and cons of this softer tip? Trail breaking? Crust breaking? Easier in the grooves? If I switched back and forth between a Gamme and an Ousland what would I notice that would be caused by the tip? I know thats a really specific question that ignores other parts of the ski. It’s all really fascinating and I wish I could just test skis and comment on it for a living!

For sure Lilcliffy will chime in on this one... he has a particular dislike of crust breaking underfoot due to a soft tip not breaking it ahead

I could reply properly, but it would only be 2nd hand info from Lilcliffy, so better to have the expert explain.

Ha! Not so sure I would call myself an expert!

But, yes, I do have a particular distate- HATE- for XC skiing through breakable crust with a rockered ski.

I have MUCH experience with breakable crust- anyone that skis in local climates with extreme winter temperature fluctuations- and ample precipitation- knows what I am talking about.

I moved from Quebec to southern Coastal New Brunswick when I was 10 years-old, and went to college in Halifax- I have much experience with racing-against-time to ski on very temporary soft fresh snow, and then dealing with flash freezing and breakable crust (with soft snow underneath) until the next storm.

Since I moved to the Central NB hills, I thought I had mostly escaped these conditions, but the last two seasons have brought wild fluctuations in temperature, with multiple rainstorms, immediately followed by extreme flash freezing.
We are still getting loads of snowfall- more and more in fact- but, mid-winter rain + extreme cold leads to death crust.

So- perhaps enough blathering...

No one can ski fast enough in the backcountry for a XC ski to plane.
When XC skiing, a rockered ski is pre-bent, which causes the rockered shovel to ride on top of breakable crust- leaving the midsection of the ski breaking trail- YUCK.

A ski with a stiff, low-profile rocker (e.g. Gamme 54) can just get away with it in breakable crust.
At the extreme- skis like the Fischer E99/E109 Xralite are horrible in breakable crust- with the Asnes Sverdrup and Falketind 62 being even worse!

The best BC-XC ski I have ever tested in breakable crust is the Asnes Amundsen.

Advantages of a softer tip?
Softer tips are more flexible- which can be an avantage in certain conditions- can possibly aid turn initiation- and certainly facilitates a fairly wide ski going around a turn in a groomed track.
At the extreme- VERY long Finnish forest skis have soft, reverse-sidecut tips that sort of carve a slice through very deep snow- with the skier supported on the long stable platform (with zero sidecut) that follows behind the tip.

Advantages to a softer shovel?
IMHO there are ZERO XC advantages to a softer shovel.
A softer shovel definitely makes it easier to bend a ski into a downhill turn.
But- a rockered ski doesn't need a soft shovel to bend it into a turn...

Trail breaking in deep soft snow-
I have yet to see any advantages to a rockered shovel when XC skiing and breaking trail in very deep soft snow.
In fact, my personal experience is the opposite.
Again, skis do not plane at XC speeds- therefore, a rockered shovel is simply creating more surface area, resistance and friction.
For example, this is very noticeable when comparing the Asnes Ingstad vs the Combat NATO in very deep snow- the Combat NATO is more efficient.
There is even a noticeable difference between the slightly-rockered Gamme 54 and the Amundsen BC- the Amundsen is more efficient.
NOW- point them downhill- different story! A rockered definitely causes a ski to plane at downhill speed.

XC skiing on consolidated snow?
Rockered skis have shorter effective edges and glide zones on when XC skiing on consolidated snow. The difference is MASSIVE. The Combat NATO is twice as efficient as the Ingstad BC when XC skiing on consolidated snow.
And despite the extra camber underfoot- I remain unconvinced that the Sverdrup is more efficient than the non-rockered, less cambered Nansen on consolidated snow.

Not sure if any of this is helpful- but after more than 10 years of testing Nordic touring skis with rocker- my personal conclusion is that all of them perform beautifully in a narrower range of conditions than their non-rockered rough equivalents.

The Ingtad BC is my favourite Nordic touring ski (when the conditions are ideal)→ the Combat NATO ALWAYS works.
The Sverdrup BC is pure magic (when the conditions are ideal)→ the Nansen ALWAYS works.

The Gamme 54 kinda always works- but I must admit that the Amundsen outperforms it as a straightforward BC-XC ski (I wouldn't have known without access to both).

I am sure there are contexts where the Ousland is ideal- otherwise I would expect it to suck- I personally think I would hate it in my local BC context- but, it just might be ideal in yours!

[wabene]

What would be the pros and cons of this softer tip? Trail breaking? Crust breaking? Easier in the grooves? If I switched back and forth between a Gamme and an Ousland what would I notice that would be caused by the tip? I know thats a really specific question that ignores other parts of the ski. It’s all really fascinating and I wish I could just test skis and comment on it for a living!

For sure Lilcliffy will chime in on this one... he has a particular dislike of crust breaking underfoot due to a soft tip not breaking it ahead

I could reply properly, but it would only be 2nd hand info from Lilcliffy, so better to have the expert explain.

Ha! Not so sure I would call myself an expert!

But, yes, I do have a particular distate- HATE- for XC skiing through breakable crust with a rockered ski.

I have MUCH experience with breakable crust- anyone that skis in local climates with extreme winter temperature temperatures- and ample precipitation- knows what I am talking about.

I moved from Quebec to southern Coastal New Brunswick when I was 10 years-old, and went to college in Halifax- I have much experience with racing-against-time to ski on very temporary snow, and then dealing with flash freezing and breakable crust until the next storm.

Since I moved to the Central NB hills, I thought I had mostly escaped these conditions, but the last two seasons have brought wild fluctuations in temperature, with multiple rainstorms, immediately followed by extreme flash freezing.
We are still getting loads of snowfall- more and more in fact- but, mid-winter rain + extreme cold leads to death crust.

So- perhaps enough blathering...

No one can ski fast enough in the backcountry for a XC ski to plane.
When XC skiing, a rockered ski is pre-bent, which causes the rockered shovel to ride on top of breakable crust- leaving the midsection of the ski breaking trail- YUCK.

A ski with a stiff, low-profile rocker (e.g. Gamme 54) can just get away with it in breakable crust.
At the extreme- skis like the Fischer E99/E109 Xralite are horrible in breakable crust- with the Asnes Sverdrup and Falketind 62 being even worse!

The best BC-XC ski I have ever tested in breakable crust is the Asnes Amundsen.

Advantages of a softer tip?
Softer tips are more flexible- which can be an avantage in certain conditions- can possibly aid turn initiation- and certainly facilitates a fairly wide ski going around a turn in a groomed track.
At the extreme- VERY long Finnish forest skis have soft, reverse-sidecut tips that sort of carve a slice through very deep snow- with the skier supported on the long stable platform (with zero sidecut) that follows behind the tip.

Advantages to a softer shovel?
IMHO there are ZERO XC advantages to a softer shovel.
A softer shovel definitely makes it easier to bend a ski into a downhill turn.
But- a rockered ski doesn't need a soft shovel to bend it into a turn...

Trail breaking in deep soft snow-
I have yet to see any advantages to a rockered shovel when XC skiing and breaking trail in very deep soft snow.
In fact, my personal experience is the opposite.
Again, skis do not plane at XC speeds- therefore, a rockered shovel is simply creating more surface area, resistance and friction.
For example, this is very noticeable when comparing the Asnes Ingstad vs the Combat NATO in very deep snow- the Combat NATO is more efficient.
There is even a noticeable difference between the slightly-rockered Gamme 54 and the Amundsen BC- the Amundsen is more efficient.
NOW- point them downhill- different story! A rockered definitely causes a ski to plane at downhill speed.

XC skiing on consolidated snow?
Rockered skis have shorter effective edges and glide zones on when XC skiing on consolidated snow. The difference is MASSIVE. The Combat NATO is twice as efficient as the Ingstad BC when XC skiing on consolidated snow.
And despite the extra camber underfoot- I remain unconvinced that the Sverdrup is more efficient than the non-rockered, less cambered Nansen on consolidated snow.

Not sure if any of this is helpful- but after more than 10 years of testing Nordic touring skis with rocker- my personal conclusion is that all of them perform beautifully in a narrower range of conditions than their non-rockered rough equivalents.

The Ingtad BC is my favourite Nordic touring ski- when the conditions are ideal→ the Combat NATO ALWAYS works.
The Sverdrup BC is pure magic- when the conditions are ideal→ the Nansen ALWAYS works.

The Gamme 54 kinda always works- but I must admit that the Amundsen outperforms it as a straightforward BC-XC ski (I wouldn't have known without access to both).

I am sure there are contexts where the Ousland is ideal- otherwise I would expect it to suck- I personally think I would hate it in my local BC context- but, it just might be ideal in yours!

Great informative comment, thanks!

[CwmRaider]

I moved from Quebec to southern Coastal New Brunswick when I was 10 years-old, and went to college in Halifax- I have much experience with racing-against-time to ski on very temporary snow, and then dealing with flash freezing and breakable crust until the next storm.

Since I moved to the Central NB hills, I thought I had mostly escaped these conditions, but the last two seasons have brought wild fluctuations in temperature, with multiple rainstorms, immediately followed by extreme flash freezing.
We are still getting loads of snowfall- more and more in fact- but, mid-winter rain + extreme cold leads to death crust.

Great post, I knew your opinions about rocker before, but now you put the finger on the differences in our situations. Those short term fluctuations are not typical where I live. It can rain mid winter, but will rain for several days typically before freezing, resulting in a thick slush which turns to ice, hopefully followed by more snow.
Overall the rocker issue is real, but it remains highly situational.

[Crayefish]

What would be the pros and cons of this softer tip? Trail breaking? Crust breaking? Easier in the grooves? If I switched back and forth between a Gamme and an Ousland what would I notice that would be caused by the tip? I know thats a really specific question that ignores other parts of the ski. It’s all really fascinating and I wish I could just test skis and comment on it for a living!

For sure Lilcliffy will chime in on this one... he has a particular dislike of crust breaking underfoot due to a soft tip not breaking it ahead

I could reply properly, but it would only be 2nd hand info from Lilcliffy, so better to have the expert explain.

Ha! Not so sure I would call myself an expert!

But, yes, I do have a particular distate- HATE- for XC skiing through breakable crust with a rockered ski.

I have MUCH experience with breakable crust- anyone that skis in local climates with extreme winter temperature fluctuations- and ample precipitation- knows what I am talking about.

I moved from Quebec to southern Coastal New Brunswick when I was 10 years-old, and went to college in Halifax- I have much experience with racing-against-time to ski on very temporary snow, and then dealing with flash freezing and breakable crust until the next storm.

Since I moved to the Central NB hills, I thought I had mostly escaped these conditions, but the last two seasons have brought wild fluctuations in temperature, with multiple rainstorms, immediately followed by extreme flash freezing.
We are still getting loads of snowfall- more and more in fact- but, mid-winter rain + extreme cold leads to death crust.

So- perhaps enough blathering...

No one can ski fast enough in the backcountry for a XC ski to plane.
When XC skiing, a rockered ski is pre-bent, which causes the rockered shovel to ride on top of breakable crust- leaving the midsection of the ski breaking trail- YUCK.

A ski with a stiff, low-profile rocker (e.g. Gamme 54) can just get away with it in breakable crust.
At the extreme- skis like the Fischer E99/E109 Xralite are horrible in breakable crust- with the Asnes Sverdrup and Falketind 62 being even worse!

The best BC-XC ski I have ever tested in breakable crust is the Asnes Amundsen.

Advantages of a softer tip?
Softer tips are more flexible- which can be an avantage in certain conditions- can possibly aid turn initiation- and certainly facilitates a fairly wide ski going around a turn in a groomed track.
At the extreme- VERY long Finnish forest skis have soft, reverse-sidecut tips that sort of carve a slice through very deep snow- with the skier supported on the long stable platform (with zero sidecut) that follows behind the tip.

Advantages to a softer shovel?
IMHO there are ZERO XC advantages to a softer shovel.
A softer shovel definitely makes it easier to bend a ski into a downhill turn.
But- a rockered ski doesn't need a soft shovel to bend it into a turn...

Trail breaking in deep soft snow-
I have yet to see any advantages to a rockered shovel when XC skiing and breaking trail in very deep soft snow.
In fact, my personal experience is the opposite.
Again, skis do not plane at XC speeds- therefore, a rockered shovel is simply creating more surface area, resistance and friction.
For example, this is very noticeable when comparing the Asnes Ingstad vs the Combat NATO in very deep snow- the Combat NATO is more efficient.
There is even a noticeable difference between the slightly-rockered Gamme 54 and the Amundsen BC- the Amundsen is more efficient.
NOW- point them downhill- different story! A rockered definitely causes a ski to plane at downhill speed.

XC skiing on consolidated snow?
Rockered skis have shorter effective edges and glide zones on when XC skiing on consolidated snow. The difference is MASSIVE. The Combat NATO is twice as efficient as the Ingstad BC when XC skiing on consolidated snow.
And despite the extra camber underfoot- I remain unconvinced that the Sverdrup is more efficient than the non-rockered, less cambered Nansen on consolidated snow.

Not sure if any of this is helpful- but after more than 10 years of testing Nordic touring skis with rocker- my personal conclusion is that all of them perform beautifully in a narrower range of conditions than their non-rockered rough equivalents.

The Ingtad BC is my favourite Nordic touring ski- when the conditions are ideal→ the Combat NATO ALWAYS works.
The Sverdrup BC is pure magic- when the conditions are ideal→ the Nansen ALWAYS works.

The Gamme 54 kinda always works- but I must admit that the Amundsen outperforms it as a straightforward BC-XC ski (I wouldn't have known without access to both).

I am sure there are contexts where the Ousland is ideal- otherwise I would expect it to suck- I personally think I would hate it in my local BC context- but, it just might be ideal in yours!

Maybe worth mentioning that the Ousland is likely designed for a very specific environment... I.e. Polar Arctic. Here there is lots of frozen crap/crud and all manner of icy protrusions where the soft tip would probably help to guide the ski over more gently than with a hard tip (and that ice isn't going to compress underfoot). Or so I'm told...

After much advice from this site, I've actually just ordered a set of 210 Gammes today! Wooohoo. While they'll be used almost entirely for BC expeditions witha pulk, where an Amundsen is the better ski, I went for the greater versatility of the Gamme due to skiing in mountainous or hilly areas, such as Sarek and Hardangervidda (in some areas). I won't be doing any tele turns with a pulk behind me, not that I know how, but I feel the added control of the Gamme on the occasional downhill outweighs the minor loss of efficiency when pulk hauling. Better to be 15 mins slower over the day, than end up in a pile at the bottom of a slope!

[lilcliffy]

Maybe worth mentioning that the Ousland is likely designed for a very specific environment... I.e. Polar Arctic. Here there is lots of frozen crap/crud and all manner of icy protrusions where the soft tip would probably help to guide the ski over more gently than with a hard tip (and that ice isn't going to compress underfoot). Or so I'm told...

Yes- this is my understanding as well-
and after watching video of Borge climbing up over frozen ice rubble in the frackin dark- while pulling two pulk-kayaks (one for him and one for his gear)- I am not surprised that he needs a ski that is pre-bent to climb over that!!!

After much advice from this site, I've actually just ordered a set of 210 Gammes today! Wooohoo. While they'll be used almost entirely for BC expeditions witha pulk, where an Amundsen is the better ski, I went for the greater versatility of the Gamme due to skiing in mountainous or hilly areas, such as Sarek and Hardangervidda (in some areas). I won't be doing any tele turns with a pulk behind me, not that I know how, but I feel the added control of the Gamme on the occasional downhill outweighs the minor loss of efficiency when pulk hauling. Better to be 15 mins slower over the day, than end up in a pile at the bottom of a slope!

Very cool!
And I think you made the right choice.
The Gamme is undoubtedly more versatile than the Amundsen in hilly/mountainous terrain- if one has enough room for them to come around!
Whenever I have had the opportunity to set the Gamme up on carved linked (very wide) turns they have felt wonderful!