skis for making miles

[Nitram Tocrut]

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2305

Look up this extensive thread on Gamme 54. You will read that Gamme 54 is better for hard snow than E99... and it is no April fool

[Woodserson]

There is extensive Asnes Gamme Fever here on this site. The E-99's are slightly more rockered, lighter, I would say less tough. The Gammes are faster, smoother, quieter, but heavier-- but not by much.

I have both skis and love them both, the E99 comes in waxless but I find myself reaching for the Gamme with the skin more than the E99 Crown when those conditions warrant.

[greatgt]

Oh.....E99's are the best selling ski of all time.....Broken many sets but knowing what we put them through....Man they are tough....And fast......And turnable....and can go anywhere.....and are wonderful in soft corn.....TM

[Rodbelan]

I like the Glittertind myself (specially the red version, which seems to be more turn friendly). Gamme 54, E99, all of them are (seem) good choices, regarding your needs (disclaimer: I never skied those 2 last one; I have seen some version of E99 though). The new Glit is supposed to have a stiffer camber; better for covering distance... The bases are real good quality; they retain wax better than others I tried...

[paulzo]

Is Madshus still making Glittertinds? I couldn't find them on the website.

[Rodbelan]

Yes... Now it is called the BC 55...

[paulzo]

Aha. I wondered if that might be the case.

[lilcliffy]

The only context that I would consider a wide single-cambered ski for a XC skiing is if the snow is very soft and very deep.

And float is not everything when XC skiing.
For example, my 195cm Annum/188cm Storetind float higher in powder snow than my 205cm Ingstad BC/210cm Combat Nato/210cm Gamme 54. Depsite this extra float- these narrower skis are very stable in deep soft snow and much more efficient XC skis- they are faster when XC skiing in powder snow- despite not floating as high in the snow column.
The advantage of skis like the Annum/Storetind is in there downhill performance.
The Annum/Storetind (and I would suggest Objective/Vector/S-112) REALLY suck as XC skis on dense/consolidated snow.
The narrower, longer and more cambered touring skis that I list above are MUCH better as XC skis on dense/consolidated snow- with the exception of the Ingstad BC.
The Ingstad BC is a wonderful XC ski in deep soft snow, but it has so much tip-rocker that it has a very short glide zone on dense/consolidated snow. I only grab my Ingstad when I am going to crush some miles in deep, soft snow.

I must confess to really struggling with my truly double-cambered waxless-scaled skis- with a true XC length.
For example, my waxable 210cm Gamme 54/E99 are perfect at my weight- offering superb glide, grip and stability.
However- I simply cannot get adequate grip with my 210cm E99 Crown...I recently tried a 200cm E99 Crown and the grip was much improved- but with a VERY noticeably loss in glide...My 210cm Gamme 54 with kicker skin is more efficient and faster (at my weight) than a 200cm E99 Crown...(Mind you the current E99 Crown has more tip rocker than the Gamme- and therefore less glide zone on dense snow...)

My current pick would be the same as Woods' for what you want to do: Gamme 54 BC with kicker skin. The Amundsen should be at least as good if not better for gentle to flat terrain. Gamme 54 over Amundsen for hilly terrain.

I am currently testing both the Fischer 78&88 at 199cm and comparing them both to the 210cm Gamme 54 BC and 210cm E99 Tour Xtralite.
The Gamme 54 BC is a faster XC ski than the all 3 of the Fischers.
The E99 Tour Xtralite has more tip rocker than the 78- on consolidated snow I would suggest that their glide zone is similar at 210cm and 199cm, respectively- on dense/consolidated snow. But the E99 has more camber and stiffness underfoot than the 78- therefore it is a faster XC ski.

The 199cm Fischer 88 is quite unique...It has as much camber and stiffness underfoot as the 78 (i.e. camber-and-a-half). It is the fastest XC ski I have ever tested with a width as wide as 68mm (it is barely slower than the 78!) And it is the only touring ski I have ever tested with a width as wide as 68mm that actually offers decent XC performance on dense/consolidated snow. The Fischer 88 reminds me GREATLY of the Asnes USGI ski- though the 88 is MUCH lighter. And of course- at 68mm underfoot- the Fischer 88 offer significantly more grip and float than the narrower touring skis...At this point I feel the 88 is a better ski than the 78...It is only marginally slower as a XC ski, but offers more grip, float and stability than the 78.

I must admit that I am the only skier in my current Clan that appreciates the performance of the Gamme 54 and the E99...Everyone else in my Clan prefers the skis with more width underfoot, (and less camber) and don't seem to care that they are slower (and also don't seem to care that I am always waiting for them to catch up to me!) The rest of the skiers in my Clan- including my wife- all come from Alpine skiing backgrounds and don't really seem to "get" double-cambered skis...They tend to shuffle on skis as opposed to the way I charge and stride...

No matter what you go with- make sure you have a kicker skin!

[lilcliffy]

not too much sidecut, since straighter seems to track straighter.

More than seems.

[lilcliffy]

Also, the Ingstad tips are pretty soft and sometimes you don't have that much ski on the snow so longer would be better.

I do not find the Ingstad BC has a soft tip...And there is one 195cm and two 205cm in my Clan...All three of these skis have a stiff and stable tip....
By comparison- the Eon , E109, E99 Xtralite, and Epoch all have softer tips than the Ingstad BC. The tip on the Ingstad BC is even stiffer than the Fischer 78/88- both of which have fairly stiff stable tips.

Of course, it is possible that the tips of your Ingstads are softer than ours...BUT- I wonder if what you are experiencing is a function of the amount of tip rocker on the Ingstad BC- as opposed to softness?