Amundsen or Gamme?

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

*edit: I see that this topic was addressed to some extend in this thread regard pulk skiing http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 70e#p38709

This last winter I probably skied 90% deep, unconsolidated snow in fairly dense forest, with small, often steep, hills.
*The opportunity for tele turns is rare except when I break out more responsive skis like my Vagabonds. Step turns, survival stems and the occasional jump turn are the norm.
The Fischer excursion 88s performed fairly well in these conditions (they are an all around decent, but slow nordic ski). They are pretty stiff overall and resisted bowing in the middle, but the wide shovel and rocker tended to cause the tail of the ski to sink leaving the tip at the surface. This type of problem became even more pronounced during the spring crust season. On the flip side I've been on and seen others on skinny very stiffly cambered track skis where the tips bent like a banana in deep snow. These types of skis are pretty much unusable in deep snow and crust conditions. My experiences have led me to think that a Gamme (68-54-61) or Amundsen (67-57-62) would be a good addition to my quiver for touring in deep snow. The Gamme might offer slightly better downhill characteristics, whereas the Amundsen might tour better in deep snow due to being ever so slightly wider under foot and in the tail. This is absolutely an assumption and any input from users of either ski is appreciated. Both skis are described by Åsnes as having a "prominent wax pocket" and being stiff. From reading on this forum, it seems that users are pretty happy with the performance of the Gamme, including in the conditions I've described. My concern with both skis is that they'd be too stiff to get effective traction on deep soft snow, but I haven't read anything from users that would indicate that it's really a problem. The question I have is whether the Amundsen is similar to the Gamme (as far as ability to engage the wax pocket) or if it's so stiff that it is best used in more firm snow conditions. I'm aware that the combat NATO may be better than either one, but it is not really available on the North American market that I know of.
It seems a conclusion others have drawn is that the Amundsen is less versatile because it doesn't offer as
much downhill performance as the Gamme. I guess I am a little skeptical that the Gamme offers enough downhill performance to tip the scales, over the slight increase in stability that the Amundsen offers. If I was on more open slopes with sustained downhill runs I might favor the Gamme.

[lowangle al]

Ian, I can't help with your decision but what I have found in deep unconsolidated snow it is hard to get traction since you don't have a solid surface to push against. On my powder boards I'll put kickwax on from tip to tail when the normal wax pocket doesn't cut it and that makes a difference. Sometimes even on a moderate slope you may be better off with skins.

On those kind of days the furthest I'll ski is to the closest skiable hill that I know of and do laps on it using the same up trail. Going a long distance is going to be tough and slow especially if you don't have help breaking trail.

[エイダン.シダル]

Åsnes Otto Sverdrup? That's what I'm looking to get for next winter, when they're released, for similar use to what you describe. You'll find them on p. 17.

https://issuu.com/jukfra/docs/_snes_katalog_2021_eng

[fisheater]

Åsnes Otto Sverdrup? That's what I'm looking to get for next winter, when they're released, for similar use to what you describe. You'll find them on p. 17.

https://issuu.com/jukfra/docs/_snes_katalog_2021_eng

I looking forward to your review!

[Woodserson]

The Gamme might offer slightly better downhill characteristics, whereas the Amundsen might tour better in deep snow due to being ever so slightly wider under foot and in the tail. This is absolutely an assumption and any input from users of either ski is appreciated. Both skis are described by Åsnes as having a "prominent wax pocket" and being stiff. From reading on this forum, it seems that users are pretty happy with the performance of the Gamme, including in the conditions I've described. My concern with both skis is that they'd be too stiff to get effective traction on deep soft snow, but I haven't read anything from users that would indicate that it's really a problem. The question I have is whether the Amundsen is similar to the Gamme (as far as ability to engage the wax pocket) or if it's so stiff that it is best used in more firm snow conditions. I'm aware that the combat NATO may be better than either one, but it is not really available on the North American market that I know of.
It seems a conclusion others have drawn is that the Amundsen is less versatile because it doesn't offer as
much downhill performance as the Gamme. I guess I am a little skeptical that the Gamme offers enough downhill performance to tip the scales, over the slight increase in stability that the Amundsen offers. If I was on more open slopes with sustained downhill runs I might favor the Gamme.

I forget how much you weigh, but I have the traction problem in deep soft snow with my 210cm Gammes, but I'm at 160lbs. So yes, this could be a thing for sure.

From what I understand I think the consensus is that the Gamme and Amundsen are very similar flex and camber wise, with the nordic rocker being the primary difference driver.

And on downhill performance, I don't think you're that far off either. Yes, the rocker offers an edge on its turnability, but the flex is not tuned to turning. That doesn't mean I can't turn mine, I can, but the Nansen and Ingstad, with their softer flexes (different from each other) and the very pronounced rocker on the Ingstad make turning much easier.

The nordic rocker on the Gamme, like the Ousland, is more for tracking over --rather than through-- variable snow conditions. (my opinion, otherwise-- why the stiff underfoot camber and flex?)

In the conditions you specify in your post I would probably pick a different ski altogether (combat NATO is a good start, as you mentioned) but between the two, I'd go Gamme.

And I agree, the Otto should probably be in the running in this conversation.

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

Sometimes even on a moderate slope you may be better off with skins.

I think this may be the key. I have the EZ skins for my 88s which I used twice. On the waxless skis they're more hastle than they're worth a lot of the time. But if I get a waxable ski I'll start relying more on skins. For the conditions I've described, the base is not stable enough to offer any glide most of the time, so nothing would really be lost by adding the skins while gaining a lot of traction. I do most of my skiing in a wooded area adjacent to my property because most of the time if I want to ski at all I just have to get on them and go rather than take the time to drive somewhere. I actually don't mind rambling through the woods in knee deep snow, but I don't like fighting with my equipment. That being said I don't really need new skis, but I like to try different skis when I can.

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

Åsnes Otto Sverdrup? That's what I'm looking to get for next winter, when they're released, for similar use to what you describe. You'll find them on p. 17.

https://issuu.com/jukfra/docs/_snes_katalog_2021_eng

I wonder what gap Åsnes is wanting to fill with this ski? From the description it actually sounds similar to the Excursion 88, but with a bit more side cut (and waxable). I tend to rate the 88 as pretty low in turnability score, but this is largely due to my choice to go with the 199cm which is rated for 220+ lbs. At 195lbs the 88 gives me acceptable float and traction, but poor turning.

[Woodserson]

I wonder what gap Åsnes is wanting to fill with this ski? From the description it actually sounds similar to the Excursion 88, but with a bit more side cut (and waxable). I tend to rate the 88 as pretty low in turnability score, but this is largely due to my choice to go with the 199cm which is rated for 220+ lbs. At 195lbs the 88 gives me acceptable float and traction, but poor turning.

From that Crister guy viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1772&p=39683&hilit=sverdup#p39573

The new Sverdrup set has been in the works for some time. While the Nansen and Cecilie skis are really forgiving and easy to turn, they have had a limited XC-performance and have probably been too soft for many individuals.
It's basically a redesigned Nansen/Cecilie, with a better wax pocket, more stiffness underfoot, and a camber more like the Børge Ousland BC and Gamme 54 BC skis. On the other hand, we wanted it to be as playful (or even more) as the Nansen/Cecilie skis, so we added more sidecut, a generous Nordic Rocker (similar as in Børge and Ingstad), as well as Taper.

The changes we made, are basically something the market (and you) have been asking for. And now the time was right to introduce this new model with the added benefits. The Sverdrup with even more playful than the Nansen/Cecilie, turns easier and has way better XC-performance. You may call it a downscaled Ingstad/Falketind with more camber and flex if you like. Or at least, something along those lines.

I will say, that for myself at 160lbs I've been really happy with the 205cm Nansen. It has been a fantastic ski for me! But I can see how it wouldn't be for everyone.

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

I will say, that for myself at 160lbs I've been really happy with the 205cm Nansen. It has been a fantastic ski for me! But I can see how it wouldn't be for everyone.

I guess it makes sense then to have a new ski that's sort of in the same niche as the Nansen, but provides better xc performance for heavier skiers. If you find the 205cm effective for you at 160lb, then I might find them a bit noodly at 195lb.

[fisheater]

I will say, that for myself at 160lbs I've been really happy with the 205cm Nansen. It has been a fantastic ski for me! But I can see how it wouldn't be for everyone.

I guess it makes sense then to have a new ski that's sort of in the same niche as the Nansen, but provides better xc performance for heavier skiers. If you find the 205cm effective for you at 160lb, then I might find them a bit noodly at 195lb.

However, I have a 210 Gamme, at plus 190 lbs. Nansen might be fun for touring for turns when things are more consolidated. Maybe mount it Super Telemark which allow me to ski it either with Alaska or Ski March boots if I’m pushing the downhills.
I’m just thinking out loud!