Considering the Gamme

[wabene]

The Crispi Norland Hook is at Telemarkdown for, I think, $159. It is leather with a full protective rand. A super comfortable kick and glide boot albeit on the softer side for ankle support, but the fore foot is much stiffer torsionally than a NNN off track or combi boot. I like them for rolling terrain and they are quite a bit lighter than my 75mm Svartsens and of course Ski March's.

[Musk Ox]

I don’t have any problem climbing with them either.

I don't, either, to be honest. If I know there's hills to be climbed I'll have skins on, or I'll be out on my beloved Nansens. I definitely wouldn't have my Gammes shorter either!

But I do remember someone saying they sized up one increment too far and found it a bit difficult to squish them on the hill, which I can believe...

(Apropos Åsnes's size recommendations, I don't think they're totally 100% perfect across the range... just to reiterate, I'm right on the cusp of the 190 and the 200 for the MR48 and would have been better served by the longer ones, I think, but again this is a really long conversation...)

Right, so á propos of my previous post, what a good, lighter NNN BC boot than the Alaskas, for my Gammes? Similar quality. Alpina even. No plastic-fantastic, if you please. I know somebody's going to say Snowfields...

My wife loves her Crispi Stetinds... adequate for a bit of this

[wabene]

The Stetind and the Norland Hook look very similar. The Stetind is $259 vs $159 for the NH. I'm going to guess that the difference is the Stetind has more ankle support. If that is the case and money doesn't matter I would go with the Stetind. I really like my Norland Hooks for rolling terrain, but if it had more ankle support that would be good. You can always loosen the upper on a boot with a stiffer cuff. There is only so much support available in the NH. I'm going to guess the Stetind is heavier. I have wide feet and like a generous toe box and Crispi boots are super comfortable for me.

[Smitty]

OP is right in the middle of the weight category for 190 cm, and at the edge for 200 cm. But with the original question being framed as 200 cm vs 210 cm, I still recommend the shorter of the two (200 cm).

It's not a ski I would recommend anyone "go short" on by any means, that's not the design intent. And I think it can make sense to skew longer vs shorter if you're on the edge between sizes, depending on your preferences and use case. But that's essentially what OP would be doing by going 200 cm. Upping to 210 cm is a pretty big jump for the weight.

There's a point where too much ski length (and associated stiffness) for your weight will inhibit speed due to lack of grip on the kick. Or lead to more drag because you have to extend your wax pocket way out to make it sufficient. It can also be more fatiguing if you really have to focus your kick when on variable snow with no tracks to hold you laterally when transferring weight.


To each his own for sure. And of course, depends on the conditions you're skiing then on. But I think lack of grip is definitely harder to overcome and more frustrating than lack of glide.

[Woodserson]

I'm between 68-72kg without gear, carry a 7kg pack if in the woods and I'm on my 200's. The 210's are too much. I use the 210's for fast lake travel (totally flat terrain) but that's it now.

Local hilly terrain is going to be the big factor for the OP. What does "moderate" mean in Yellowstone? I don't know.

The T78 that you have (pre-21/22) and Gamme are too different to do a fair apples-to-apples comparison. They seem similar on paper but flex and camber wise are completely different. The Gamme will be faster, hands down.

[wabene]

OP is right in the middle of the weight category for 190 cm, and at the edge for 200 cm. But with the original question being framed as 200 cm vs 210 cm, I still recommend the shorter of the two (200 cm).

It's not a ski I would recommend anyone "go short" on by any means, that's not the design intent. And I think it can make sense to skew longer vs shorter if you're on the edge between sizes, depending on your preferences and use case. But that's essentially what OP would be doing by going 200 cm. Upping to 210 cm is a pretty big jump for the weight.

There's a point where too much ski length (and associated stiffness) for your weight will inhibit speed due to lack of grip on the kick. Or lead to more drag because you have to extend your wax pocket way out to make it sufficient. It can also be more fatiguing if you really have to focus your kick when on variable snow with no tracks to hold you laterally when transferring weight.


To each his own for sure. And of course, depends on the conditions you're skiing then on. But I think lack of grip is definitely harder to overcome and more frustrating than lack of glide.

This is really good advice. One time when track skiing with my wife I accidentally skied off on her Madshus M50's. She has 190cm and me 205cm. My unbiased reaction since I had no idea they were hers was how good and fast the skis were. They felt great. Easy to ski. I'm about 180-185 plus day pack and water and when kick is fleeting I have to concentrate on the 205's. I wouldn't trade, but lack of kick is the most frustrating part of XC skiing and exactly when a longer ski is slower. I have these Fischer Backcountry Crown skis that are cheaper ($25 like new!) edgeless extruded base skis in 215cm that I use in spring and when I'm lazy for waxing and hitting some logging roads. They are softer skis and I get great kick in spite of the length. They feel good to ski and almost (fishscales) fast because of it.

[lowangle al]

OP is right in the middle of the weight category for 190 cm, and at the edge for 200 cm. But with the original question being framed as 200 cm vs 210 cm, I still recommend the shorter of the two (200 cm).

It's not a ski I would recommend anyone "go short" on by any means, that's not the design intent. And I think it can make sense to skew longer vs shorter if you're on the edge between sizes, depending on your preferences and use case. But that's essentially what OP would be doing by going 200 cm. Upping to 210 cm is a pretty big jump for the weight.

There's a point where too much ski length (and associated stiffness) for your weight will inhibit speed due to lack of grip on the kick. Or lead to more drag because you have to extend your wax pocket way out to make it sufficient. It can also be more fatiguing if you really have to focus your kick when on variable snow with no tracks to hold you laterally when transferring weight.


To each his own for sure. And of course, depends on the conditions you're skiing then on. But I think lack of grip is definitely harder to overcome and more frustrating than lack of glide.

This is really good advice. One time when track skiing with my wife I accidentally skied off on her Madshus M50's. She has 190cm and me 205cm. My unbiased reaction since I had no idea they were hers was how good and fast the skis were. They felt great. Easy to ski. I'm about 180-185 plus day pack and water and when kick is fleeting I have to concentrate on the 205's. I wouldn't trade, but lack of kick is the most frustrating part of XC skiing and exactly when a longer ski is slower. I have these Fischer Backcountry Crown skis that are cheaper ($25 like new!) edgeless extruded base skis in 215cm that I use in spring and when I'm lazy for waxing and hitting some logging roads. They are softer skis and I get great kick in spite of the length. They feel good to ski and almost (fishscales) fast because of it.

This confirms two things that I've said on here. One was yesterday, to paraphrase, "good kick trumps good glide" as far as efficiency goes.

The second was about 15 years ago. "If you want to be a better skier, wear your wife's skis"

[Smitty]

This confirms two things that I've said on here. One was yesterday, to paraphrase, "good kick trumps good glide" as far as efficiency goes.

The second was about 15 years ago. "If you want to be a better skier, wear your wife's skis"

Haha, well said.

[grizz_bait]

Well, I just ordered the 200s along with 45 mm mohair skins. Can’t wait! Looking forward to learning how to wax, I must be a glutton for punishment.

[The GCW]

grizz-bait,

quote, "Well, I just ordered the 200s along with 45 mm mohair skins. Can’t wait! Looking forward to learning how to wax, I must be a glutton for punishment."

There will be no punishment. Learning new things is invigorating and fun. This forum is so helpful for learning the waxing technique and if You understand the concept of sometimes getting it wrong, is ok, getting better is the only course.

A glutton for fun and adventure.

:plug for other posters:
I've learned so much here. I'm still learning & always will. Thank You.