Ski Camber and Rocker

[jyw5]

Im going to finally ski this wkend. shoulder is still having issues...will take it easy this wkend and try out the Sverdrup, regardless of conditions and provide feedback. Now you guys have me very curious about the Amundsen...

[lilcliffy]

I agree with you Ullrsson- my 205 Nansen is also as "stiff" and stable as my 208 Amundsen, 210 Gamme and 205 Ingstad (the Nansen has GREATLY surprised me)-
The difference is in the camber profile and the final resistance underfoot-
Both the Amudsen and the Gamme are more resistant over their length than the Nansen- and they are both more resistant underfoot than the Nansen-

Just to clarify as this may mislead people to think that the Gamme/Amundsen are "cambered underfoot" (i.e. like Stephen's drawing)-
the Amundsen and Gamme are cambered over their length- not cambered underfoot like a "current" E99-XL.

The Amundsen/Gamme are certainly stiffer overall than the Nansen- I can bend my 205 Nansen into an arc (if I REALLY pressure it)- neither the Amundsen or the Gamme bend into an arc.

All that being said the Nansen is remarkably stiff and stable in its flex- it greatly surpised me- in fact I am thrilled by this as for some reason I was expecting the Nansen to be too soft for my liking...

My review of the Amundsen- including comparisons to other skis such as the Gamme- to come soon!

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy
Gareth, you sure make the Amundsen sound like a fun ride! So I’m assuming Amundsen is faster, should I assume better tracking as well? One of the things I like about Gamme is the tracking. It’s really a big deal.

Amundsen is not "faster" than the Gamme- the glide surface on my 210 Gamme vs 208 Amundsen are very close (due to the low-profile rocker on the Gamme)- Amundsen might be a bit longer- will measure this at some point.

The Amundsen is even more stable than the Gamme- due to the complex of its extra width underfoot and less sidecut.
Amundsen is a more efficient XC ski than the Gamme- which I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't have both to compare side by side (i.e. the Gamme is a VERY fast BC-XC ski).
The Gamme's tip rocker does ecourage planing at downhill speed, but the non-rockered Amundsen is a better trail breaker.
More details to come!

[lilcliffy]

Im going to finally ski this wkend. shoulder is still having issues...will take it easy this wkend and try out the Sverdrup, regardless of conditions and provide feedback. Now you guys have me very curious about the Amundsen...

I must admit that- for my local touring- now that I have an Amundsen + Sverdrup- my Gamme is not leaving the barn very much (my regualr tur partner is on a 210 Gamme- so I have been switching back and forth between the Amundsen-Gamme to compare).
That being said, the Gamme is a "better" downhill ski vs the Amundsen (due to tip rocker and sidecut)- but whether this makes any difference depends on the terrain and conditions one is skiing in. For my use of either of these skis the downhill advantages of the Gamme are barely noticeable (except for planing).

[fisheater]

Im going to finally ski this wkend. shoulder is still having issues...will take it easy this wkend and try out the Sverdrup, regardless of conditions and provide feedback. Now you guys have me very curious about the Amundsen...

I must admit that- for my local touring- now that I have an Amundsen + Sverdrup- my Gamme is not leaving the barn very much (my regualr tur partner is on a 210 Gamme- so I have been switching back and forth between the Amundsen-Gamme to compare).
That being said, the Gamme is a "better" downhill ski vs the Amundsen (due to tip rocker and sidecut)- but whether this makes any difference depends on the terrain and conditions one is skiing in. For my use of either of these skis the downhill advantages of the Gamme are barely noticeable (except for planing).

Well since you mentioned turning downhill, I can say that the new FT Xplore is an XC ski, kick and glide w/o wax pocket drag on a consolidated base.

[Stephen]

This conversation about the V1/V2 vs V3 version of the FT62 is interesting to me.
Some seem to say that the V3 loses some of what made it special because of the additional stiffness.
Others seem to appreciate the additional stiffness in that it seems to make the ski more versatile.
(If I have that wrong, feel free to clarify / correct.)

It’s almost like there are two different (but similar) skis that share the same name.
It’s almost like Asnes should have called it the “FT62 Black Edition” (or some such) like I have seen with some other skis.

[fisheater]

@Stephen The FT Xplore is a different ski. I’m cautious about saying too much until I put it through it’s paces. I will say it is stabile in kick and glide in deep snow. It also will kick and glide on a consolidated base, without any wax pocket drag, and with some snap. I have also pointed them down the fall line in soft snow glades with Alaska and Rotte ST w/o cables.
I need more miles to say much more.

[Stephen]

EDIT: @fisheater pointed out that, as far as naming goes, they ARE two different skis — FT62 and FT62 Xplore. I had not considered that by adding “Xplore,” Asnes was designating it as a new ski (a discrete branch) vs being an new iteration of the old ski (a continuation of the old branch). A sort of academic distinction, I suppose.

I have to doubt that both the old (V2) and new (V3) versions will be offered in the future, but who knows…

[jyw5]

EDIT: @fisheater pointed out that, as far as naming goes, they ARE two different skis — FT62 and FT62 Xplore. I had not considered that by adding “Xplore,” Asnes was designating it as a new ski (a discrete branch) vs being an new iteration of the old ski (a continuation of the old branch). A sort of academic distinction, I suppose.

I have to doubt that both the old (V2) and new (V3) versions will be offered in the future, but who knows…

The 2019 FT62 is a specialist. When conditions are right (which is a narrow window in Alaska), they are the best skis money can buy....rockets, as fast as you can climb up and ski down. When conditions are not...they are dangerous and often just unusable.