Yet another newbie "what skis should I buy" question

[mca80]

I have read through threads here for nearly 20 hours. Lot of great info but still want to request responses to the question in the thread title based on my specific physical, recreational, and ecological traits in the hopes of really getting it down right. I am not looking for all around skis except insofar as some of my skiing needs to handle different snow. Cost is not an issue because I am not loading quiver all at once but buying what I need when I can and adding to it over the coming years (assuming things become available again). Right tool for right job--if I dont have the right tool as yet then I just won't do that job until I do. I am interested in XC BC touring, no xcD at the moment but perhaps in the future.

Firstly, my climate and location: western upper peninsula of Michigan near Wisconsin border. 50 miles southeast of Lake Superior so far enough from the big lake to get bitterly cold but close enough for decent lake effect snow--I think yearly avg here is 120", and it often comes down light and powdery but not always. We've had 60" to Dec 31 this year. Nov and early Dec (and sometimes Oct we get decent snowfall) can be warmer at times but if the high is too high for my equipment I can always just go out for a few hours in the morning. Late Dec, Jan and Feb it almost never gets above freezing and if it does it's 35F for a day and back down below 28F (or below 0F) for weeks on end, oftentimes in single digits or teens for the high.

Now about me: 41 years old, male, short at 5'4" (162cm), raw naked weight roughly 148 lbs (67kg) possibly down to 143 if I go easy on the beer. Not fat at all despite usual BMI charts, just large frame and muscles--I buck and split a lot of wood by hand and frequently walk 6 miles each way to get to town and back in the summer. Not exactly a traditional Nordic skiers frame, which has me questioning what length is suitable. I learned to ice skate when I could walk, took up downhill 7 years ago when I moved to New Mexico mountains and picked it up very quickly, perhaps because of my skating background, doing black diamonds at Copper and A Basin in CO and 16" fresh powder at Taos my 3rd thru 5th times skiing. I moved back to the upper midwest fall 2020 and skied xc for the first time. Stuck to groomed tracks first year and only a handful of times or so. This season been to groomers 20 times and then decided I was ready to try backcountry and have been 10 times in varying conditions. I had a feeling that was the sport for me and I was right--this is something I will do the rest of my life. However, being totally self-taught I don't know if my technique is any good. When I bought the skis last year I explained to local shop guy my intention of wanting one ski to do groomed tracks and light bc as I learned with intention of upgrading eventually. He put me on rossi ot 65 (waxless, 3/4 edge) with combi boots. Now I need better.

Was thinking about fischer 78 or 88 and sticking with waxless because I barely know all the different types of snow and waxing seemed daunting. But after reading a lot and then being out in the backcountry I think waxless is good for beginners or conditions near freezing, or lazybones. Ergo ready to try waxable skis, though the aforementioned Fischers may be good to eventually put in the quiver for specific conditions near freezing and use the rossi's as rock skis. The question, now, is where to start adding skis, which leads me to the type of terrain and skiing I am doing.

This area is characterized by glatiation. It carved mostly undulating hills all over, consisting of rock and sand. We have more lakes than you can count, and more 50-100ft hills as well. It is known in Wisconsin as "lake country" with great fishing and lots of snowmobiles around (ugh). My skiing, now that I have left the groomed tracks, consists mostly of a wilderness area that gets high use in some parts and very minimal in others. I am sticking to hiking trails (30 miles of trails in this area) for now, some of which are as wide as an old logging road and many are quite narrow and tree-lined. I would go off these trails except that in many parts, being upper midwest, the tree cover is so dense it wouldn't be terribly fun especially for someone new. There are no wide open downhills for turns to speak of around here but if I ventured an hour away I could find possibly find some. Same goes for big hills. Mostly it is undulating with the ocassional steep 50 to 100 ft vertical, but those, if I stick to the trails, are straight and narrow and just fine for zipping down and not needing to turn except for emergency.

The wilderness area has two main access points for me: main entrance with plowed parking lot. The first two miles of trail get a lot of use, skiers, snowshoes, even hikers depending on snow. The snow is therefore compacted, sometimes uneven and chopped up, and icy. After that there are countless trails to ski which do not get as much use and I would as likely find unbroken trail as I would one set of ski tracks. There are also lakes to ski on. The other main access point comes from a trailhead on an unplowed forest road that gets use from snowmobiles. The edges of that road may be unbroken but where the snow machines go it is what you would expect. There is one bigger downhill on the road that descends maybe 200 feet with a gentle turn (which may pose difficulty going back up without skins--early season with light snow when I went there to hike I needed to put the truck in 4wd on it, and right now it is impassible by truck). Once on the trail from this access it is narrow, mostly unused, with occasional steep 50 ft climbs and descents interspersed with the more common gentle ups and downs.

So, to belatedly get to the point. I need a ski that can handle snowmobile tracks and/or snow compacted by frequent use, until I can get to unbroken terrain. So I need stability and speed on compacted, crunchy, icy, choppy stuff with the ability to then cruise through the woods breaking trail or using my own tracks or those of some rare soul who was there before me. If I need multiple skis for when there is fresh powder, deep fresh powder, consolidated snow, crust, etc., once getting to my unbroken trails or the lakes, so be it. But any skis I get at this point need to be able to handle the conditions described in order to get there, and then also perform once there.

So, if I were to slowly build things up, what should be in it and where should I start? And what length, given my unusual physical attributes? Keep in mind cruising is first and foremost, which leads me to think an Amundsen or Gamme might be the best place to start. Having both might be semi redundant though, and eventually down the road I may want to either drive to steeper, hillier terrain or try my hand off the trails in the trees here if I can find good hills where trees are spaced a little more in which case something like an Ingstad may suit. I also plan to do some overnight camping next year, either with pack or pulk, depending. Such a trip would entail maybe 20 or so miles on the terrain I listed with my gear and another 5 or so miles exploring without the gear after setting up camp. Also, am tentative about ordering skis online but that is the only way to get Asnes where I am unless I want to wait till next season and drive 3 to 4 hours to REI and hope they have them.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

[fisheater]

I’m 5’9”, 190 lbs former concrete guy. So not exactly the classic Nordic build. I’m in Oakland County, Michigan north of Detroit. This is also glacial terrain, with lots of lakes. My local skiing is hiking trails that have been widened by mountain bikes. Twisty trails that go up and down, sometimes steep.
My ski for local conditions is the Gamme. I ski it at 210 cm, which is one size above Åsnes recommendation.
For what it’s worth @connyro lives in the UP somewhere around Marquette I believe. He writes about liking the Traverse 78 waxless for early season trail skiing. However he also writes about skiing in plastic boots and Vector class skis for skiing backcountry downhill skiing as well.
Good luck,
Bob

[mca80]

Thanks Bob. T78 sounds good for early and late season, something I think I should get at some point but all I could find online or locally was T78 in 176 or 88 in 169, both of which may be a size too small given my weight.

How do you feel going one size over recommendation for the Gamme? I would think with a higher weight to height ratio one could get by with a shorter (reccomended size) ski to aid in handling without sacrificing speed, or no?

[fisheater]

No, as far as I have experienced weight is more important than height. You need to have enough weight to engage the wax pocket, however if you weigh too much it won’t release as well and you will sacrifice considerable speed and fun. I’ve downhill skied 205 cm skis for a good 10 years + until more modern alpine skis came out and were meant to be skied shorter. That being said I was a little apprehensive about a 210 cm Gamme. I really don’t know why, and I’m embarrassed to admit that. However I’m so happy I went for it.
So if you’re asking me, I would go one size longer than where you fit in their weight recommendations. If not longer don’t go shorter than the longest size you fit on their chart.
You are a skier, there could be a learning curve, but it’s really worth it. The Gamme makes me faster than I should be be.
The 210 Gamme is one size beyond my recommended weight sizing, 190 lbs/86 kilos

[mca80]

160-170 60-75 180

170-180 70-85 190

So being 67kg nude, probably what, 70 to 72 clothed plus boots, definitely go 190 if I opt for Gammes? Will I still be able to get decent grip on that size? If you're familiar with my terrain--Sylvania Wilderness, gentle and continuous hlls with occasional short steep ones--Gammes would be preferable to Amundsens? They'll perform well on the 2 miles of snowmobile track too, till I get to the wilderness, eh?

[fisheater]

According to the chart you should be fine. However @Woodserson is lighter and has skied these skis In different lengths. I’m confident he will pipe in tomorrow. @lilcliffy has a new pair of Amundsen, he also has Gamme, Ingstad, Sverdrup, and Nansen. His initial reports on Amundsen certainly have peaked my interest. He gets a lot of snow, and writes good things about Ingstad in deep snow and hills.
You’ll be getting some good advice, but may end up with more questions!

[Woodserson]

Oooh this one is complex. This is where you want to weigh the height-chart aspect of the ski as well.

Nansen 185cm. Shit, maybe even the 190cm if you want to prioritize distance over turning. The ski is quite forgiving. You can flail/snowplow down anything. I'm also right now at 67kg naked and running the 200 but I'm 188cm. It does well, with good waxing technique. I can probably get away with shorter but then the ski starts to feel weird and short for my limb lengths. I also like longer skis, but shorter skis have the attributes and maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.

The wider platform of the Nansen offers more stability in chunked up snowmobile trails. More stability = more efficiency and a less fatiguing tour. The downside is softer camber which is not as poppy as the Gamme and won't be as fast. But then again new to waxing? Small wax pocket, easier to change things and get good base compression for good kick and glide.

I'm dubious about the Gamme, just because of the type of ski and the pairing to this particular skier. I would hesitate to suggest it.

I would say hard no on the Amundsen and go Gamme if it really came down to these two.

But the T78 is really good too, the question is length, and you can't really add or subtract the fishscales. Maybe Connyro can pipe in on weight/length for this ski.

Tough one, but again, balance height vs weight on the rec chart, and don't go too crazy length wise with a wax ski considering your experience level.

Stability is good. It might not be as fast, but it can be more enjoyable.

[connyro]

Welcome to the forum fellow yooper! The t78s are my go-to ski for touring the UP backwoods. I'm not a waxer so I can't comment on the Asnes skis you've mentioned. I'm 185 5'10" and the camber is about right for me on the 199s. I wish they came slightly longer but I still feel they are fast and float pretty well for an xc ski and they turn surprisingly well for what type of ski they are. The scales grip very well and glide well too. IMO you'd want to be on the 189s for your weight.

We've got bigger hills and deeper lake effect here where I ski so when "touring for turns" or even just breaking trail after a storm, I like the Voile bc/koms/etc type skis for better downhill control, stability, and float.

Do you get to the Porkies much? There's lots of xc, bc, and dh options and the terrain is spectacular. And of course telefest in February...

[mca80]

Thanks Woodserson. The wider tip of the Nansen will sacrifice speed but give me greater stability on the terrain I described eh? And can also handle deeper snow/steeper hills, too. I wasn't even considering that model thinking it was too wide. Another to consider.

Connyro, Marquette is a beautiful area, done plenty of backpacking around there, no skiing as yet. Same with the porkies. I do plan to get to the porkies sometime this season and likely more next season. From hiking I recall much larger hills, and obviously a lot more snow--although this season we have had more snow thus far due to a couple big storms that came from the southwest. The t78 seem like one of the best waxless ski out there, but I can only find it online in 176 from Neptune. No one has it in stores. So the option is that or wait until next season and hope it is available again.

And if I get a Nansen I can order a 185 or 190 online and not worry about not being able to stand on it and do the paper test prior to purchase?

But for both t78 and Nansen--the wider tip isn't overkill for me given that I am not doing much turning or steep climbs...right now (I can always get another ski if and when that becomes part of my skiing)? Keep in mind 90%+ of my skiing will be in the area described in original post. Driving an hour to ski isn't as fun as driving 5 minutes, or not driving at all.

[connyro]

But for both t78 and Nansen--the wider tip isn't overkill for me given that I am not doing much turning or steep climbs...right now (I can always get another ski if and when that becomes part of my skiing)? Keep in mind 90%+ of my skiing will be in the area described in original post. Driving an hour to ski isn't as fun as driving 5 minutes, or not driving at all.

IMO, the extra width gives you more float and stability in deeper snow while they are still narrow and light enough to be pretty nimble. Another narrower option is the e99s...Also, what boots are you considering?

I've spent some time in your neck of the woods in the summer camping and fishing. Unbelievable amount of lakes and the forests are incredible out your way. Lots of BC xc opertunities all around out there plus close to the porkies and few people.