Still looking for a ski that would fill the gap between a MR48 and the FT62.
I PM’ed lilcliffy / Garett on this, and he replied with much to ponder.
(After spending some time on TT, I have come to appreciate LC’s insightful and thorough contributions!)
I have put his reply below.
One thing he got me thinking about is the type of snow the ski will be used on.
I have been using the website
www.weatherspark.com to research different places I might spend the winter skiing.
One thing I eventually realized is the big difference in water content between different geographical areas.
This is an example of one of those things one might already know, but in my case, had not really connected the dots.
Of course I have heard terms like Sierra Cement, and Champaign Powder (and have spent winters skiing both), but just really thinking about how skis respond to snow with different water content was like the proverbial lightbulb turning on!
For example:
- In Trondheim, Norway (Roelent) __ 3.5” of rain makes 1” of snow;
- In Truckee, CA, ________________ 1.5” of rain makes 1” of snow (Sierra Cement!);
- In Oakland County, MI (fisheater), _1.2” of rain makes 1” of snow;
- In McCall, ID, __________________ 0.6” rain makes 1” of snow; and
- In Steamboat Springs, CO, _______ 0.2” of rain makes 1” of snow (Champaign Powder!).
Those are big differences in moisture content.
Roelent has said that the Nansen is popular in Norway. Maybe that the ski does well on consolidated snow (high moisture content) has something to do with that.
I am looking for a ski that does well on the other end of the snow moisture content spectrum (Rockies).
After reading through Gareth’s comments (that I have quoted below), I came to the conclusion that the Ingstad was probably the best match for what I was looking for.
I thought his comments really made clear characteristics of several different Asnes skis, and consolidated information I have found in many different posts on TT. Having the information in one post made it much easier for me to compare the different skis (Gamme, Nansen, and Ingstad).
lilcliffy wrote:Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:12 pm
Hello Stephen,
Thanks for the email- sorry I did not get back to you sooner!
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "all around ski" but I will dig into the details of your email!
I have no experience, nor exposure to the MR48- so I cannot comment on whether an "E99-class" ski (e.g. E99/Gamme 54) would be "better" in deep snow than the MR48- nor whether the MR48 would be better than these wider skis when XC skiing on consolidated snow.
It would at least seem to me that there would be a LOT of overlap between a Gamme 54 and a MR48 for everyday XC-focused BC touring...
I can say that the Gamme 54 is superb in every imaginable snow context- due to its supportive stable flex. Would be cool to compare the Gamme to the MR48 and MT51...
You mention "float"-
When it comes to deep, fresh, soft snow- at 175-185lbs I do not find any truly sginficant difference in flotatiojn between all of theses skis- ranging from 50-68mm underfoot...The difference is in flex and stability- and whether that matters depends on whether one is XC skiing vs downhill skiing- vs the "xcd" in between.
For example-
The FT62 is nowwhere near as stable as the Ingstad BC in deep soft snow-
Therefore, the Ingstad is a MUCH better XC ski in deep soft snow vs the FT62.
The Gamme 54 is just as stable as the Ingstad in deep snow- is more efficient Xc skiing on consolidated snow- but the Ingstad is more manageable and grippy in steep teraain and offers better turn intitation.
My point is that the difference between all of these BC Nordic touring skis is there geometry- not their flotation.
My experience is that I need to have a ski at least as wide as 78mm underfoot before I start to be able to "float" on soft snow...
Shooting from the hip I would suggest that there is a lot of overlap between a Gamme 54 and a MR48....
So- a Combat Nato- or a Ingstad BC would be the geometry that matches the space you are looking to fill-
The Ingstad BC is a dream hill-country deep snow XC ski.
The Combat Nato is more versatile- better than the Gamme 54 in deep soft snow- less efficient than the Gamme on consolidated snow.
The Eon suits very light skiers best. I find it-n even at 205cm- too unstable in deep soft snow- and too dead on consolidated snow.
BUT- you might love the Eon- MANY skiers do!
Hope I am helping you!
Regardless- my only straightforeward advice is to forget "float" with skis this narrow.
On the subject of the Nansen-
I habve no experience with this ski either, but there are many reports on this site of this rounder-flexing (compared to the Ingstad and Gamme) ski suffering from instability and "pool-cover syndrome" in deep soft snow. There are specific poor reports from "Rcoky Mtn" skiers regarding the Nansen.
The Nansen is a very popular Fjellski in Scandanavia- moisture-rich, dense snow and mild winters...
I would very much like to try the Nansen, I am just not sure where I would use it...
It reportedly ahs the same camber and tension underfoot as the Ingstad/Combat Nato- but has rounder-flexing tips/tails, and does not have the tip-rocker of the Ingstad.
The Nansen would be unstable in my deep winter snow- and would be slower than the Gamme as a XC ski. So the Nansen would be a a good xcd ski for consolidated snow- where XC is more important than downhill...If downhill trumps XC- then the FT62 makes the Nansen obsolete...
Gareth
lilcliffy wrote:Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:35 pm
Hi Stephen
Ingstad 205cm!
Deep soft snow, hilly terrain, crush som miles, ride them arcs!
Vroom! Vroom!
Ask Woods- he wishes he had the 205 instead of the 195.
Yes- please feel free to share my comments.
All the best my friend,
Gareth