Ski Length Dilemma

[Musk Ox]

I'm about 79kg (174 pounds) and 178cm.

This puts me about 5kg and 2 cm into the 190 cm bracket for a pair of Gammes, per Åsnes sizing charts.

Any good reason why I shouldn't just get the 200s?

The 200 cm Gammes are recommended for skiers up to 95 kilos, which is a lot heavier than me. I'll able to squish the pocket with my weight and poor technique, right?

I do ski through a lot of birch trees on often fairly steep inclines, so manoeuvrability is an issue, and skill-wise, I ski like a Dane,* as they say here. It's largely going to be day tours, travelling light.

What does the hive mind say?





*A drunk pensioner from a fishing village in northern Jutland

[lowangle al]

I would go shorter Musk Ox. The longer skis might glide better but they will be a lot more work to compress the camber for a kick and also to flex them to turn. You will have to use more energy to get enough weight on them for grip and turns and you will have more kicks that slip and more turns that don't happen.

[greatgt]

Adjust your skiing.....get the longer skis....I got some e109's and didn't listen to myself....190's....200 would have been better....And the length isn't just for kick and glide....learning to do Nordic telemark is far different from downhill telemark.....enjoy the trip....had a blast on those e99's last Saturday in six inches of mashed potatoes....last years wax worked well!!!!!! TM

[Musk Ox]

I would go shorter Musk Ox.

Great, will do, I'm convinced, let's hope no one immediately contradicts that great advice, Al.

Adjust your skiing.....get the longer skis...

OH FOR FFS, ha ha!

Actually, I should just add – the Åsnes sizing charts *also* recommend 200 Gammes for skiers who weigh 80kg in the next height category (180cm +). 80 kg is basically my weight after a heavy lunch.

Height: 170-180 / Weight: 70-85 — Gamme 190
Height: 180-190 / Weight: 80-95 — Gamme 200

[lilcliffy]

Hey Musk Ox-
I weigh 80kg without a pack.
I have the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm and would not want them shorter- be it deep soft snow or dense consolidated snow.
I do not have any difficulty compressing the camber, getting grip- when kick and glide skiing and when climbing steep slopes.

As far as pressuring them into turns- the Gamme is a stiff ski with a XC geometry, flex and camber.
I personally think a ski like the Gamme is best in the longest length one can manage.

I certainly ski in hilly terrain with the Gamme- but I don't try to ski steep tight downhill lines with them.
If you are looking for a ski that will be manageable on steep treed slopes- perhaps consider a different, more downhill-oriented ski?
My point is if you are going to give up the XC advantages of a longer Gamme- then why not use a more downhill-oriented ski?
For example-
I find the XC performance of my FT62 pretty marginal- especially on consolidate snow-
BUT- I kinda doubt that a 180-190cm Gamme 54 would be that much better- and if it was it would only be on consolidated snow- due to the longer-less rockered glide zone of the Gamme. I have not tested a 190cm Gamme 54, but we do have 180-190cm E99s and Glittertinds in my ski circle (used by small skiers- fine for them)- slow and boring for me- yuck.

Personally, I don't understand the idea of a short XC ski for improved downhill performance- when one can get a more downhill-oriented ski.

Why the Gamme and not the Nansen, or the Ingstad, or the FT62? Or an E109? Or an Eon?
(I am not name-dropping bigger, wider skis becasue I assume you want to use your beloved Lundhag Guide boots?)

[fisheater]

Musk Ox, I am 5’9” tall, somewhere right around 190 lbs. That is approximately 175 cm and 86 kilos. I ski my Gamme at 210 cm and have no issues not being able to compress the wax pocket. I also do not have any problem controlling these skis either. I will admit on my local twisty trails I am not dropping a knee. These skis like to go straight. I do a lot more step turning and Telemark versions of wedge Christies. On my 200 cm USGI skis I would be dropping a knee, but I would be going near as fast! I fly on my Gamme! Southeast Michigan does not have a great Nordic tradition. It’s the land of waxless recreational skis, or skate skis. I prefer to ski the non-groomed so I don’t see many skate skiers. I was blowing by people so quickly last winter I was frequently stopped and asked about my gear. Any mention of kick wax was greeted with disappointment, because no ski shop in my area sells waxable Nordic skis. The point is, the Gamme are really fast, handle nicely at 210 cm, and at somewhere around 86 kilos I don’t have any problem compressing them. They are made for backcountry snow so it shouldn’t be a surprise! However they still glide nicely on packed trails.
I will also add that I’ve climbed these trails in many different conditions on my S-112 and I didn’t feel I was giving anything up on the Gamme for climbing.

[Musk Ox]

Hey Musk Ox-
I weigh 80kg without a pack.
I have the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm and would not want them shorter- be it deep soft snow or dense consolidated snow.
I do not have any difficulty compressing the camber, getting grip- when kick and glide skiing and when climbing steep slopes.

As far as pressuring them into turns- the Gamme is a stiff ski with a XC geometry, flex and camber.
I personally think a ski like the Gamme is best in the longest length one can manage.

I certainly ski in hilly terrain with the Gamme- but I don't try to ski steep tight downhill lines with them.
If you are looking for a ski that will be manageable on steep treed slopes- perhaps consider a different, more downhill-oriented ski?
My point is if you are going to give up the XC advantages of a longer Gamme- then why not use a more downhill-oriented ski?
For example-
I find the XC performance of my FT62 pretty marginal- especially on consolidate snow-
BUT- I kinda doubt that a 180-190cm Gamme 54 would be that much better- and if it was it would only be on consolidated snow- due to the longer-less rockered glide zone of the Gamme. I have not tested a 190cm Gamme 54, but we do have 180-190cm E99s and Glittertinds in my ski circle (used by small skiers- fine for them)- slow and boring for me- yuck.

Personally, I don't understand the idea of a short XC ski for improved downhill performance- when one can get a more downhill-oriented ski.

Why the Gamme and not the Nansen, or the Ingstad, or the FT62? Or an E109? Or an Eon?
(I am not name-dropping bigger, wider skis becasue I assume you want to use your beloved Lundhag Guide boots?)

Hey Gareth... I was waiting for you to come and recommend 4 metre long skis!

To clarify, steep birch-tree avoidance isn't going to to be the main use... I'm mostly going to be exploring the valleys, hills and plateaux around here. I was slightly anxious about manoeuvrability in the inevitable woods on the way back down, maybe.

It was a tough choice between the Nansen and Gamme, but they're doing 1200 kroner off the Gammes in the shop I think these are going to be pretty much perfect for what I'm after.

And thanks for the insight on the camber – that's pretty much what I was after! I just wanted some basic good sense injected before I pull the trigger.

[Musk Ox]

Musk Ox, I am 5’9” tall, somewhere right around 190 lbs. That is approximately 175 cm and 86 kilos. I ski my Gamme at 210 cm and have no issues not being able to compress the wax pocket. I also do not have any problem controlling these skis either. I will admit on my local twisty trails I am not dropping a knee. These skis like to go straight. I do a lot more step turning and Telemark versions of wedge Christies. On my 200 cm USGI skis I would be dropping a knee, but I would be going near as fast! I fly on my Gamme! Southeast Michigan does not have a great Nordic tradition. It’s the land of waxless recreational skis, or skate skis. I prefer to ski the non-groomed so I don’t see many skate skiers. I was blowing by people so quickly last winter I was frequently stopped and asked about my gear. Any mention of kick wax was greeted with disappointment, because no ski shop in my area sells waxable Nordic skis. The point is, the Gamme are really fast, handle nicely at 210 cm, and at somewhere around 86 kilos I don’t have any problem compressing them. They are made for backcountry snow so it shouldn’t be a surprise! However they still glide nicely on packed trails.
I will also add that I’ve climbed these trails in many different conditions on my S-112 and I didn’t feel I was giving anything up on the Gamme for climbing.

Perfect! Thanks so much fisheater!

[Woodserson]

I'm about 79kg (174 pounds) and 178cm (5' 8").

This puts me about 5kg and 2 cm into the 190 cm bracket for a pair of Gammes, per Åsnes sizing charts.

Any good reason why I shouldn't just get the 200s?

The 200 cm Gammes are recommended for skiers up to 95 kilos, which is a lot heavier than me. I'll able to squish the pocket with my weight and poor technique, right?

I do ski through a lot of birch trees on often fairly steep inclines, so manoeuvrability is an issue, and skill-wise, I ski like a Dane,* as they say here. It's largely going to be day tours, travelling light.

What does the hive mind say?





*A drunk pensioner from a fishing village in northern Jutland

Muskie, my man.

Not going to try to swing you in any way here, just adding data.

I am 188cm 70kg and I have 200cm and 210cm Gammes. The 200's are fine overall for me. The 210's a bit of a chore if loose snow and I'm climbing and descending a lot. The turns are looong for me. But they fly on the flats.

GAMMES (at least mine) are mounted a few CM's forward compared to other E99 class skis. I can get you a percentage forward if you want to really get into the weeds. This puts you more on top of the shovel, helps with turning, more swivel-bility which is the technical term.

so.many.choices.

[Musk Ox]

Thanks so much Wooderson. It's kind of ridiculous, really, because I already know what I'm going to do... choosing skis is weirdly agonising! I think because perfection is intrinsically impossible and the pleasure's difficult to imagine.