hemiboreal forest skiing in New Brunswick Canada

[Woodserson]

Hello Stephen,
(Got your PM- sorry I didn't get back to you on this.)

My specs:
- 5'10" (178cm)
- 175lbs (79.5kg)- I have lost some weight over the past couple of years

I find the 210cm Gamme perfectly manageable- even in steep terrain- excellent grip, wonderous glide- the camber on the Gamme is finely tuned for crushing miles on backcountry snow.

My opinion/perspective-
the Gamme 54 is a XC ski- a wonderous XC ski with an incredibly versatile profile and flex- as a XC ski it performs in every imaginable backcountry condition-
- it has a rock solid, stable, supportive flex- making it completely stable and supportive in very deep snow.
- it has a stiff, raised tip that breaks trail and completely destroys crust.
- it has a relatively soft initial camber (e.g. softer than the E99), with a very stiff low-profile second camber (e.g. perhaps even stiffer than the E99)- offering excellent kick and glide on a wide range of snow conditions.
- the tip is only slightly rockered- this ski still has a long glide zone on consolidated snow.
- the tip rocker does offer early tip rise at downhill speeds and does improve turn initiation
- it is very light and responsive making it effortlessly manouverable

I do not see the point in a "short" Gamme- the magic of this ski emerges from the longest length one can manage (I can certainly see getting a shorter Gamme if one was very light- say less then 150lbs).
Actually, for what I am using the Gamme for I would take a 220cm Gamme 54- I do use the Gamme is hilly terrain- but when I take the Gamme I am choosing lines that do not require me to ski tight downhill lines.

I would agree with all this... except FOR ME:

6'2"+ (188cm) and 155lbs last year (70.3kg ) I would have a hard time compressing the camber on my 210's in softer deeper snow, especially if there was an incline. IF I was in the flat fields, I could make it work, but otherwise with hills I just couldn't get the camber to fully compress. I found that my 200cm Gammes were perfect in these conditions, but in reverse, I found them a tad slow on on flat terrain or compressed snow. (which is why a 205 would've been perfect for me). A backpack with a good day's gear in it solves problems on the 210.

I also wonder about the relatively forward mounting position of the Gamme compared to other E99 class skis and how that effects the skiing. I makes the 210 more manageable but it makes the 200 slower... or is this pie in the sky thinking?

[Woodserson]

I have not skied the MR48 but two of my friends did, they have the skin version, and they loved them for Le Tour de la Gaspésie as those with regular XC ski without metal edges were having a harder time in steeper and more demanding sections.

I've kind of always wanted to do this, and wondered which skis I would bring. What bindings did your friends use?

[Nitram Tocrut]

I have not skied the MR48 but two of my friends did, they have the skin version, and they loved them for Le Tour de la Gaspésie as those with regular XC ski without metal edges were having a harder time in steeper and more demanding sections.

I've kind of always wanted to do this, and wondered which skis I would bring. What bindings did your friends use?

Not sure what specific brand but I am sure it’s not NNN-BC. Before you do Le Tour de la Gaspésie you have to come to my place so we could do the Marathon Canadien de ski that is usually held over 2 days and is about 160km if you do it all. Last year I skied 60 km over 2 days using my Madschus TL-70 with SNS bindings. Those skis and bindings were fine for about 95% of the time but I wish I had steel edge for some steeper sections especially after hundreds of skiers had gone first... Every skiers use regular track skis but I think a ski like the MT51 would be great with the partial steel edges. I don’t think a ski as wide as the Gamme would be great as you would probably lose too much energy and speed because of the skis scraping the side of the tracks... well it would not mind for a short section but not if you do 160 km over 2 days with a time limit!!!

But come in 2022 as the 2021 event will be a one day event...

[Stephen]

Okay, I read everyone's comments -- all good info.
In the end, it really seems like it is weight that is the primary factor for ski length.
It seems like skier height has somethnig to do with it, in terms of matching proportions and stride, but really it's weight and how that makes the ski interface with the snow.

So, Gareth is 15 pounds heavier than I am.
Nitram is "about my height" but heavier, I think.
Woods is just about my match (I'm an inch taller and 5 pounds heavier).

Gareth likes the 210 (or even 220!).
It sounds like Nitram likes 210.
Woods thinks 205 would be ideal (not available).
I'm not sure what Woods means when he says:
"I would have a hard time compressing the camber on my 210's in softer deeper snow, especially if there was an incline. IF I was in the flat fields, I could make it work, but otherwise with hills I just couldn't get the camber to fully compress."
What was lacking, grip?
Or, were the tips diving because the ski was too stiff for his weight?
Or, ...?

So, for me, it seems like I might be in Woods position -- 205 ideal, but having to choose 200 or 210?

The reason for asking Gareth the original question is that I have the MR48 in 210, and FT62 in 188 (coming soon!).
And I just have the sense that having something in between these two would be nice (aren't more skis always nice )
And so I'm looking at the Gamme, Nansen and Ingstad as possibilities (as well as the Madshus Eon, and or maybe a used pair of Europa 99STs in 215).
The more points of view I hear, the better I understand the skis and what I might expect.

[Woodserson]

Gareth likes the 210 (or even 220!).
It sounds like Nitram likes 210.
Woods thinks 205 would be ideal (not available).
I'm not sure what Woods means when he says:
"I would have a hard time compressing the camber on my 210's in softer deeper snow, especially if there was an incline. IF I was in the flat fields, I could make it work, but otherwise with hills I just couldn't get the camber to fully compress."
What was lacking, grip?
Or, were the tips diving because the ski was too stiff for his weight?
Or, ...?

So, for me, it seems like I might be in Woods position -- 205 ideal, but having to choose 200 or 210?

The reason for asking Gareth the original question is that I have the MR48 in 210, and FT62 in 188 (coming soon!).
And I just have the sense that having something in between these two would be nice (aren't more skis always nice )
And so I'm looking at the Gamme, Nansen and Ingstad as possibilities (as well as the Madshus Eon, and or maybe a used pair of Europa 99STs in 215).
The more points of view I hear, the better I understand the skis and what I might expect.

Yes, grip was lacking, because I couldn't flatten the ski sufficiently to get the wax in the pocket to engage. On the 210's this was especially tricky in soft snow because I don't have a firm surface to push against. On the lake, I can make it work, and the skis are fast and fun. If I am carrying 15lbs on my back, the 210 is easier to ski. I'm just almost too light for the 210 but I am not giving up the ski. I am almost too heavy for the 200, but I am not giving up the ski.

Also, I would hesitate on the longer non-rockered E99s. I think Cannatonic, who loves glide more than anyone, sold his older pair of 210 E99's because they were actually too much for his weight, IIRC he's about 160ish-170ish also. This was the model from right before the rockered Xtralite. I have an old pair of 210 E99's from early 80's and they are right on the edge for me, but manageable.

[Woodserson]

Not sure what specific brand but I am sure it’s not NNN-BC. Before you do Le Tour de la Gaspésie you have to come to my place so we could do the Marathon Canadien de ski that is usually held over 2 days and is about 160km if you do it all. Last year I skied 60 km over 2 days using my Madschus TL-70 with SNS bindings. Those skis and bindings were fine for about 95% of the time but I wish I had steel edge for some steeper sections especially after hundreds of skiers had gone first... Every skiers use regular track skis but I think a ski like the MT51 would be great with the partial steel edges. I don’t think a ski as wide as the Gamme would be great as you would probably lose too much energy and speed because of the skis scraping the side of the tracks... well it would not mind for a short section but not if you do 160 km over 2 days with a time limit!!!

But come in 2022 as the 2021 event will be a one day event...

I am going to take you up on this offer, Martin... I got my MT51's ready to go! Maybe I should get some MR48s!

OOOOoooOOOoooOOOOooooo DA FEVAH

[lilcliffy]

So- perhaps I am too enthusiastic!
Woods is probably more realistic...
A 220cm Gamme 54 is probably too much underfoot for me...
It is stiff.
But the 210cm is a dream.
175-200lb (with pack) BC-XCd dream in all imaginable snow.

[lilcliffy]

I have no experience withe MR48- nor the MT 51-\
I do some limited experience with the E89 Xtraltite- and it is much stiffer and more cambered than the E99 Xtralite.

I wonder what the "big" difference is between the MR48 /MT51/Gamme 54...

Stephen-
The difference between this myriad of BC Nordic touring skis (Fjellskis) is not width/float- it is in geometry and flex/camber-

I you are looking for a "Fjellski" that is "very" different than the MR48- I am thinking the Gamme 54 is not the ski you are looking for...

- E109 (very soft tip- less stable than the Asnes equivalents, but wonderful when the snow is not too deep..)
- Eon (maybe...)
- Ingstad BC
- Combat Nato

[lilcliffy]

Although the snow pack is over a month behind schedule here in the Central NB Hills- there is a bit more base every day!
Happy Holidays to you all!
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

After two months of snow, rain, freezing rain, warm spells, very cold snaps, ice, crud and breakable crust-
I still cannot get out into the ridges, ravines and glades- not enough snow-
I am still trail skiing in crazy extremes of temperature, weather and "snow"-
My current number one pick is the 199cm Traverse 78 for BC-XC skiing in all of this crap-
(I have also been using my Combat Nato quite a bit for the very brief periods of deeper snow we have had.)
LOVE this ski:

I would take one in an even longer length if I could get one.