Do I want a Nansen or Gamme?

[lilcliffy]

Really, I guess, I'm saying the Nansen is a better "all around" ski. Even if Gamme is "better" for my specific niche.

Had to re-post this.

[lilcliffy]

By xc ski do you mean dbl camber or is there something else?

Hi Al!
I can't speak for Woods-
But when I say "XC" ski I am mainly speaking to geometry and flex.
From my perspective- a "XC" ski has a a geometry and flex that is designed to track straight and cover distance.
(As opposed to a downhill ski that has a geometry and flex that is designed to turn.)
IMO a XC ski doesn't have to be truly double-cambered.
For my local touring conditions here in the snowy hills, I would not want a "XC" ski that had a truly effective double-cambered wax pocket- they would be hard to turn and hard to climb with.

The ski in question- the FT62 has a geometry and flex that is designed to turn. From my perspective it is a narrow modern downhill touring ski.

[fisheater]

@lilcliffy Hey Gareth, I just came off an FT tour. Maximum snow depth maybe a foot or so total snow pack, consolidated from the bottom being ice for a couple inches to firm to the top 4” being fluff.
In those conditions, the kick and glide of the FT was excellent. My skiing this season has been trail skiing. So I finally have enough coverage for a little XCD, yes they’re all capitalized. I XC skied some wide trails before grooming and hoards ruined the skiing. There are also hills deemed to big and steep to safely ski, gosh it’s good to ski be able to scoff at nonsense closing in on 60.
Kick and glide was great, turning was great. Yes Gamme would have been better in glide and tracking, but that does not mean it wasn’t really good. Because of this I would call the FT an XCD ski. If the trails were compacted it wouldn’t be fun, however then I would just “lightning tour” Gamme style. If the snow was deep and I was looking for turns, I would grab a Objective/ Vector class ski. However those skis deserve to be called alpine touring skis. After all, they are made to be mounted AT.
However I would not recommend this ski for Stephen. He gets deep snow. The FT is best for light and fast XCD tours in soft snow up to about a foot or so. It allows for fast travel and good turning. It’s not for hard trails, or crud, or crust. However if winter is cold, and you get a freshen up, and have enough cover to ski safely down hill, it’s big fun.

[lilcliffy]

@fisheater
Wonderful to hear you got out on a rip on your FT62!!
Your rush on that ski is the reason I bought it!
Your description of the conditions- a few to several inches of soft snow over a consolidated base is the ideal snow for this superb ski.
And- I do agree- when the conditions are just right the FT62 is a superb "XCD" ski!!!!!

[fisheater]

I don’t get your deep snow Gareth, so I had no idea of the deep snow issues. I told myself to take my Tindan out today, but the snow in my yard said FT. I still have not skied the Tindan, but I will by next weekend for sure.
I guess my climate is why I don’t need an Ingstad. It’s also why for XCD skiing the biggest trouble with the FT is not enough snow. When there is too much, I really hope Tindan fills that niche.
For trail skiing I have not yet been in to deep for Gamme. I’m not saying it can’t happen, I just have not experienced it.

[lowangle al]

By xc ski do you mean dbl camber or is there something else?

Hi Al!
I can't speak for Woods-
But when I say "XC" ski I am mainly speaking to geometry and flex.
From my perspective- a "XC" ski has a a geometry and flex that is designed to track straight and cover distance.
(As opposed to a downhill ski that has a geometry and flex that is designed to turn.)
IMO a XC ski doesn't have to be truly double-cambered.
For my local touring conditions here in the snowy hills, I would not want a "XC" ski that had a truly effective double-cambered wax pocket- they would be hard to turn and hard to climb with.

The ski in question- the FT62 has a geometry and flex that is designed to turn. From my perspective it is a narrow modern downhill touring ski.

Thanks LC, what kind of flex would you consider xc. I consider a soft to be a turner so would a stiff flex be a cruiser?

[Musk Ox]

We skied about 10k yesterday along a bouldery frozen river to get to somewhere specific my lady wife wanted to see for a project. I went on my Gammes, my wife on her Nansens. About 40cm of snow, I suppose, with some drifts, it hadn’t snowed there for about four days. -12°C ish, really strong wind. Not ideal conditions, cold thumbs, but still a lot of fun. Blue Swix, mmm. The Gammes are a machine. I made the trail the whole way there, just out of practicality… would have taken a really long time otherwise... and was pretty exhausting for the Nansen-wearer. I was so, so much faster on the way back.

A couple of days before I went up a little 'mountain' not too far away from us by car, the specific place I was thinking of when I bought my Nansens, and finally went up with my Nansens, the 35mm skins on. The way up was a pleasure, a hike. A little waddling and sidestepping in the steep bits. Beautiful powder, blue skies, white snow, boulders, dwarf birch trees, sun on the mountains. Perfect. Coming down was… um, exciting, but if I’d had juust a little more skill it would have been about the best day of my life.

They’re quite different skis. I know they’re supposedly adjacent on the Åsnes Continuum of Desire, but for these sorts of things, selection is a non issue... Basically, I really love them both.

[Smitty]

They’re quite different skis. I know they’re supposedly adjacent on the Åsnes Continuum of Desire, but for these sorts of things, selection is a non issue... Basically, I really love them both.

Glad to hear it Musky! I agree, I don't find them to be redundant at all, regardless of how they may look at first glance on paper.

[Stephen]

I’m finally getting around to posting the answer to that question, which you can find here:
http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... =90#p39269

[Musk Ox]

The snow started an entire six weeks too late, which was... bad, and it was patchy at first. But it's not giving up yet. We've just had a couple of days of lovely snow, there's soft snow at sea level and above 250m there's still powder, and we've been skiing on it.

This season, I used my Nansens more because I wanted to do some exploring with steeper hills, and I scratched that itch. I love them.

The Gammes are enormously better on deeper snow and better for distance on frozen rivers, in valley bottoms and the plateau (to be fair, Nansens are pretty good on the plateau too, just not as fast and need a base within touching distance).

There was one time I did a cross-country sprint on my Nansens after my wife had a Catastrophic Skin Failure and we changed plans, so she went back to the car to meet me on the other side, in a shop 'restaurant', and the snow was soft and completely bottomless, I had u-shaped submarine skis and there were short steep uphill bits where I fell over and couldn't get back up, and there was a blizzard, it took an hour longer than I'd thought it would and I wished fervently I had my Gammes.

I think if it were life or death it would have to be the Gammes because they'll get you anywhere, and they're really fast, and they're entirely awesome. The pleasure of the speed and the energy.

But I have to say I had the most fun on my Nansens. I got very high up on my Gammes a couple of times, but I always had more fun coming down on Fridtjof.

The Teal Man is like a train journey in first class between Berlin and Copenhagen where they bring you sausages and you drink a glass of wine and you read your book and stare out the window as the countryside whizzes by and everything is right in the world. You're probably a famous novelist visiting your children. Nansen's like an open-top car journey to a seafood restaurant in Cornwall with your someone who makes you laugh.

I think if I had to keep one pair, rationally, I'd keep the Gammes, but I'd buy a pair of Nansens 'by accident' and use them more.

Or sell them both and buy a pair of Ottos.