Gamme vs Amundsen vs Ousland

[JohnSKepler]

These skis are very similar in profile:

Tip Foot Tail Tip Rocker
Amundsen BC 67 57 62 Stiff No
Borge Ousland BC 66 52 60 Soft Yes
Gamme 54 BC 68 54 61 Stiff Yes

Thanks to some great reviews on here, including detailed remarks from @Johnny, @lilcliffy, @fisheater and others, I have some understanding of how camber, rocker, stiffness, and sidecut affect performance. What I don't have as firm a grip on is where tip stiffness plays in to the equation.

I'm considering these three skis for my all-around with the requirement that it fit in a track and be good on snowmobile tracks. Around here (Northern Utah) this is a great way to get to more secluded spots with some elevation and trees. So, how might each of these three play in that world where you get a wide range of snow conditions? For reference, all the lengths are around 195cm (avg) for my loaded weight of 170 - 183 lbs. I'll be using Xplore bindings and both Alfa Free and Alpina XP boots. I'll be waxing for conditions and using the Xskin.

[Stephen]

What I don't have as firm a grip on is where tip stiffness plays in to the equation.

I'm considering these three skis … this is a great way to get to more secluded spots with some elevation and trees.

Rocker with a soft tip is not going to track as well, especially on the snowmobile sections.
Stiffer skis like the Gamme and Amundsen will track better.
My take on the Ousland is that it was designed for certain conditions: irregular arctic snow.
It will ski any snow, of course, but I think that was the thought behind the design.

When you get to those “more secluded spots with some elevation and trees,” what do you want to do?
Are you mainly traversing, or do you want to ski down with turns?
The latter is doable but challenging on the Gamme.
Probably even more challenging on the Amundsen.
Not sure about the Ousland.

I’m sure others will have more to add…

[JohnSKepler]

Rocker with a soft tip is not going to track as well, especially on the snowmobile sections.
Stiffer skis like the Gamme and Amundsen will track better.
My take on the Ousland is that it was designed for certain conditions: irregular arctic snow.
It will ski any snow, of course, but I think that was the thought behind the design.

When you get to those “more secluded spots with some elevation and trees,” what do you want to do?
Are you mainly traversing, or do you want to ski down with turns?
The latter is doable but challenging on the Gamme.
Probably even more challenging on the Amundsen.
Not sure about the Ousland.

I’m sure others will have more to add…

Much of the skiing within an hour of my home is up into canyons and down out of them. In most cases the down is manageable but would be a lot better with something designed to turn at least a little, unlike the Rossi BC65 and BC80 that I had been using. They don't turn at all. The secluded spots are often the end of the trail/road and offer some slope skiing. I just didn't like the pretty much complete lack of control on the Rossis - especially with skate skiers coming at you on the way down, taking up the entire road. And they say cross country isn't as exciting as alpine...

[fisheater]

John,
Soft tips are nice in tracks because they deflect from the sides of the track. On my old school ancient E-99, the softer worked well with the overall stiffer flex of the ski, however on a rockered XC ski like the Gamme, I think a soft tip would be a disaster. I think the Ousland’s tip was designed for skiing in a lot of kibbles and bits. The Amundsen I believe is refined old school Nordic touring, Gamme coming from the Amundsen with a touch of rocker.
I really think you are going to be pleasantly surprised how the FT X tours. It may not be giving up too much to your old Rossi touring skis, until you point it downhill. Let me add the caveat depending on how long you bought the FT X at. I have a 196 cm for my 190 lbs. It tours and turns well at my weight. I’m sure the sizing guide would have put me on a shorter ski. It would also be true that some very good skiers would prefer that ski much shorter for going downhill in tight terrain.
Once you start touring and dialing in your wax you’ll see.
Good luck

PS In the right conditions I can drop a knee in the Gamme. I wouldn’t consider taking the Gamme into an area where I would be wanting to make turns in Utah 3-D snow. If I was looking for an XC ski to do that I believe I would want an Ingstad. Two other skis that might work would be the Nansen or the Combat NATO. None of those skis fit in tracks. Really and truly I would be skiing the Falketind, it does kick and glide and it turns!

[JohnSKepler]

I got the FT X out last Friday and was blow away. We'd gotten 3-4 feet of snow over the course of that many days on top of six to eight inches that had partially refrozen. It was very close to bottomless powder. I waxed with Toko blue glide wax because I couldn't get my hands on any Polar V05 and I was NOT going to miss that dump! I didn't use any grip wax but just went with the XSkin. My intent was the remain mostly flat and get a feel for the float, kick and glide, and general handling qualities. (The Swix Polar finally arrived on Monday and I plan on stripping the ski and waxing with grip next time. I'll get a great comparison!)

I went to a basin I know of near Beaver Mtn. ski area; several miles across, undulating with raised edges. It was 10deg under a bluebird sky. Didn't even feel cold under that sun. I was amazed at both the float and how well that ski tracked in this deep snow. The XSkins did exactly what they are supposed to do but I think I could feel them dragging at times. I also need to get the 58mm if I'm going to climb. The 45mm just didn't offer enough grip uphill. But the skis were amazing. There were times that I sank a bit when kicking, but I could usually push through it with some glide. You could really see the rocker doing it's job, keeping those tips up. My older Rossi skis would have simply failed under those conditions. There were also a few snowmobile tracks that had partially compressed the snow, though I'd have still plunged to my crotch had I stepped in it. The Falkentind handled them beautifully. I would have been difficult to keep my Rossis both pointed in the same direction but the Asnes was just brilliant.

I didn't really get to test them downhill. The hills just weren't steep enough to get going fast enough with the snow that deep, but I did get some great downhill kick and glide. They are just such great skis! Much easier to step and jump turn than those Rossis that would have just failed in those conditions. I tried dropping a knee but just wasn't going fast enough and I didn't have the stiff bumpers. That will make a big difference, I think.

I did about four miles and really fell in love with the skis and the bindings. The Xplore binding is like going from riding a mountain bike on a trail with one hand, to using two hands. It is that much better, to me, over NNN-BC. I really liked the Alfa Free boots as well but I left with a fingernail sized blister on the outside top of my right heel that's still healing. I'm hoping they'll break in...

One of my new Nansen poles broke, though. Well, it didn't break, the tip came off. The whole tip and screw section for the basket. It looked like the glue they used to secure it to the carbon fiber pole came loose. I'm debating whether to send them back or fix them myself with maybe some 3M DP 8005 Scotch Weld structural adhesive. (I have some.) Because. Other than that they were awesome. Very light. Very stiff. And they didn't try to collapse on me. Oh, and great wrist straps.

For reference, I'm about 5'8", and 180 lbs fully-geared with a light pack and I bought the 172 cm based on their height recommendation. I knew that was on the short side but I was thinking controllability in trees and on hills. They did very well in tough conditions and will do even better with waxing and some broken in boots... and a not broken pole!

[lilcliffy]

These skis are very similar in profile:

Tip Foot Tail Tip Rocker
Amundsen BC 67 57 62 Stiff No
Borge Ousland BC 66 52 60 Soft Yes
Gamme 54 BC 68 54 61 Stiff Yes

While I agree that the width profile is similar- as in, more in common than with an alpine touring ski- having both the Amundsen and the Gamme, I can say that the extra width underfoot- with less sidecut- makes a big diffence in terms of stability, flotation, distribition of weight, and even grip.
Despite not having tried an Ousland ski- I would expect these differences to be even more prononced with a full 5mm extra width underfoot with the Amundsen vs the Ousland.

When you speak of "tip"- do you mean just the tip or are you referrring to the shovel as well?

Also- are you/we confident that the Ousland ski has a soft "tip"?
The reviews- and comments from Crister the Asnes pro- suggest that the Ousland is very stiff over its length (just like the Gamme and Amundsen) but has much more rocker in the shovel than the Gamme...

I'm considering these three skis for my all-around with the requirement that it fit in a track and be good on snowmobile tracks.

While the Gamme and the Amundsen do just fit in a groomed track they are terrible in a groomed track-
-their shovels are too wide and too stiff
-these skis are not highly cambered, they do not offer a true Classic track wax pocket

While the Ousland is slightly narrower- actual real-world tests suggest that it too performs poorly in groomed track (I think there is recent Finnish report on this site regarding this?)

The Gamme has about as much rocker as one can get away with and still perform decently as a XC on consolidated snow- such as a snowmobile track.
I can confirm that the Amundsen is much better and more efficicient than the Gamme as a XC ski on consolidated snow- such as a snowmobile track.
I would predict the Ousland to ski very short on consolidated snow.

Around here (Northern Utah) this is a great way to get to more secluded spots with some elevation and trees. So, how might each of these three play in that world where you get a wide range of snow conditions? For reference, all the lengths are around 195cm (avg) for my loaded weight of 170 - 183 lbs. I'll be using Xplore bindings and both Alfa Free and Alpina XP boots. I'll be waxing for conditions and using the Xskin.

I dont see the point in skiing any of these skis short- not unless one is looking for a quiver-of-one Nordic touring ski that is short for downhill skiing.
If one has a diifferent ski for more downhill/steep touring- go long with these skis to take full advantage of what they have to offer.
The Gamme is clearly the most versatile of the three- this doesn't make it a Telemark ski...
The Amundsen outperforms the Gamme as a straightfoward BC-XC ski.

I personally cannot see the use of the Ousland unless one is trying to pull two pulks (one containing a kayak) up over rock-frozen ice rubble...

[lilcliffy]

When you get to those “more secluded spots with some elevation and trees,” what do you want to do?
Are you mainly traversing, or do you want to ski down with turns?
The latter is doable but challenging on the Gamme.
Probably even more challenging on the Amundsen.
Not sure about the Ousland.

I’m sure others will have more to add…

Good question and points.
The Ousland will certainly have a shorter effective edge and glide zone than the other two.
As a result-
-it will have a shorter turn radius
-it should offer easier turn initiation on that effective edge

[JohnSKepler]

Thanks, @lilcliffy and @fisheater . This is great analysis and the kind of insight I lack as a result of my limited actual experience. I wish I'd had career mentors with this much insight into what I do for a living, and, the willingness to share it. With experience and mentoring the learning curve feels a little less steep. I will admit, for a long time, I didn't even know how to ask questions or assess answers, but I'm getting there.

@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.

I also have to consider what @fisheater said about just using the Falkentind for meeting the use cases I put forward. If it turns much better and easier than my previous skis, the track will be a lot less attractive; part of my desire for a ski that fits in a track is, simply, safety during descents. While I was first getting started in all this I thought I must be doing something wrong but everyone I talked to around here on this subject agreed that descending our canyons carried some pucker. Being hard headed, I've been committed to proving them wrong but maybe I should be committed for being so committed?

At any rate, I appreciate the discussion and the technical analysis, and especially the willingness to disagree and/or offer alternative points of view. That is quite rare so, thank you! When trying out my FT62 last week I was much better able to assess how it performed based almost entirely on what I've read and learned right here on Telemark Talk. Maybe I should write a book about and ol dog - er, an old dude, learning a new trick?

[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?

[Crayefish]

@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