Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Hi all! I have a long time been a quiet reader of this forum. My silence have been based partly on my general wish not to exist more than necessary on the internet and partly on my inexperience as a skier. However I now wish to share my experience with the Åsnes Gamme.

For reference my skiing background is as follows:
No alpine background whatsoever despite being from sweden (southern sweden ok, NOT much snow). As for XC no formal skills either even though I sometimes took to the woods on skis in my adolescense. This all changed some 5 years ago when I realized I had to have something to do in the woods when indeed snow would fall. Hence i bougt a pair of Altai Hoks which sounded not to scary and this became my gatewaydrug to the world of skiing (rather than just tumbling through the woods as previously). A couple of years later I bought some Åsnes Nansen and just a couple of weeks ago feeling I wanted more camber bought also the Åsnes Gamme. I still use the Hoks for dense forest and steep descents but always now with Tiak. Also a word of warning, despite having been on skis for several years now unfortunately its not som many days per year. Typically I can squeeze in 5-15 days of snow in my home region and then like one week in the swedish fjells where there is always snow and everybody is happy.

I bought the skis according to Åsnes size chart. Putting me at 185cm/75kg on 200cm skis. Mounted with NNN-BC magnums (yes they do protrude a bit but I like it). Dimensions are 68-54-61. My boots are Lundhags Guide BC which in themselves should have a review at some point. Super stiff BC-boots with removable wool liner. For kick and glide I have thus far used the 45mm mohair kickerskin as I still havent learnt how to grip wax... Testing has been done during one week in the Swedish mountains. Mainly wooded valleys due to stormy conditions in the alpine terrain.

All in all, the review itself will be short:
Glide: Way better than Åsnes Nansen with skins on. I think almost comparable to the E99s of the skiing company and when, on the descent I removed skins I was definately fastest.

Grip: Super good with 45mm kicker skin.

Floatation: Surprisingly good, no significant difference compared to the slightly wider Nansen. In 1,2m of snow with fairly consolidated base but 100% unwalkable at most time the tips would make their way to the surface nicely. Only on rare occasion did the tips dive. What also was really nice compared to the Nansen was the flex. When skiing the Nansen in deep snow the mid-section of the ski seems to flex downwards into the fluff impeeding K and G performance. The stiffer Gamme seems to flex right about perfect, forming a straight line of contact with the powder (which should affect floatiation positively I assume?) but not becoming an inverted camber. This flex difference seems like the second most major improvement for me compared to the Nansen after improvement in Glide.

Turning: Perhaps a bit more difficult to turn compared to the Nansen but at my skill level (can link teleturn in optimal conditions), I would not say that this makes any true difference. Survivability in XCd context seems to be the same.

Build quality: Seems good. Made in Sweden!

Overall XCd perfomance: Super nice! Thanks to good glide, grip, float, nice flex and decent maneuverability.
It is doubtful whether I will ever use my Nansen again. In the Swedish context with lots of low angle alpine touring on more or less hard and windblown snow and trips in the woods where depth of snow rarely exceeds much more than 1m I think this ski will only continue to make me more happy.

As a finishing line, thank you all for a wonderful forum!

Pete, thank you for the review. I am unfamiliar with your boots, I am sure I am not the only person that would like to see a review. It will be nice to read more of skiing in Southern Sweden. I can't go everywhere I would like, but photos and a story take me to these places, I enjoy such reports very much

Welcome Pete!

I am very pleased that you broke your silence and very much enjoyed and appreciate you sharing your experiences with the Gamme 54. It is especially valuable for you to compare it to the Nansen.

Your description of the Gamme reminds me of my E99 Tour- though it confirms my suspicion that the Gamme 54 is more stable and supportive than the E99. Fischer needs to integrate the flex of their rockered touring skis (E99/E109).

Petetheswede wrote: A couple of years later I bought some Åsnes Nansen and just a couple of weeks ago feeling I wanted more camber bought also the Åsnes Gamme.

Cool. How would you describe the camber and flex of the Nansen? Gamme the Elder's review on the UTE site makes me think the Nansen is single-cambered...I am assuming that the Gamme is double-cambered like the E99?

I still use the Hoks for dense forest and steep descents but always now with Tiak.

I love skiing with a Tiak- especially with such a short ski- a LOT of fun!

Mounted with NNN-BC magnums (yes they do protrude a bit but I like it).

NNNBC is what I would put on that ski as well.

My boots are Lundhags Guide BC which in themselves should have a review at some point. Super stiff BC-boots with removable wool liner.

I concur with Bob! I would like to know more about this boot!

Glide: Way better than Åsnes Nansen with skins on.

This is very useful information.

Grip: Super good with 45mm kicker skin.

Which skin are you using- mohair or nylon?

Floatation: Surprisingly good, no significant difference compared to the slightly wider Nansen.

This doesn't surprise me. Most of my wider midwidth touring skis (Eon/E109) do not offer anymore float than my E99s.

What also was really nice compared to the Nansen was the flex. When skiing the Nansen in deep snow the mid-section of the ski seems to flex downwards into the fluff impeeding K and G performance.

This is a very big deal- especially if "XCD" means both cross-country AND downhill performance. I am sure that the round flex of the Nansen is great for telemark turns in soft snow- BUT, the old "pool cover syndrome" is a nightmare when XC skiing in deep snow!!!!

The stiffer Gamme seems to flex right about perfect, forming a straight line of contact with the powder (which should affect floatiation positively I assume?) but not becoming an inverted camber. This flex difference seems like the second most major improvement for me compared to the Nansen after improvement in Glide.

Longitudinal stability is a big deal when it comes to XC skiing. Many of the"XCD" designs are easily reverse-flexed in order to facilitate downhill turns, but this can render them almost useless in deep snow if they are narrow underfoot. My thoughts are that tip-rocker combined with full-length stability/flex is the key to offering a reasonable balance between XC and D performance.

Turning: Perhaps a bit more difficult to turn compared to the Nansen but at my skill level (can link teleturn in optimal conditions), I would not say that this makes any true difference. Survivability in XCd context seems to be the same.

Does the Gamme 54 have more tip rocker than the Nansen?

It is doubtful whether I will ever use my Nansen again.

This says it all to me!

I can see considering a Nansen as a downhill-focused ski- but, I would probably reach for the new Falketind 62 in that context...

It would at least appear that the new Ingstad has been designed as a wider version of the Gamme 54.

My Combat Nato does outperform my E99 as a XC ski in deep snow. However, despite the extra sidecut on the Combat Nato- the E99 is actually easier to turn with its rockered tip. If I had only one BC touring ski- it would be a tough choice between the Combat Nato and the E99 Tour...

I would expect that the Gamme 54- with its rockered tip- is easier to turn than the Combat Nato...

And with my current experiences on the Storetind/FT68- perhaps it is actually the Ingstad that is redundant...I am sure that the Gamme 54 is faster than the Ingstad in everything except truly deep snow- but when the snow is deep the FT68 offers excellent XC performance (and is a superb downhill ski!)

Perhaps the best quiver would be a Gamme 54 and a FT68- as opposed to a Gamme 54 and an Ingstad...

Thanks for the excellent information Pete!
Gareth

nice report and welcome! I have 210 Gamme from a couple years ago, they were made in Czech Republic, interesting that they moved production to Sweden.

Nansen is said to have a telemark flex and I think it's aimed more at turning with the deep sidecut. FWIW I find the NATO Combat much easier to turn than Gamme, just because the longitudinal flex is so much stiffer in the Gamme. Of course I also have 210 Gamme and 200 NATO's. But that's the idea for me, the wider NATO gives you the same float in a shorter ski that turns well.

The Gammes seem to have a stiff, snappy flex that is perfect for touring. My E99's feel slightly softer and give a more sluggish feeling. Although I find the E99's very easy to turn, I haven't done much turning w/ the Gammes yet. I guess you choose 200cm if you want more turning & 210 better for distance.

Cannatonic wrote:nice report and welcome! I have 210 Gamme from a couple years ago, they were made in Czech Republic, interesting that they moved production to Sweden.

Nansen is said to have a telemark flex and I think it's aimed more at turning with the deep sidecut. FWIW I find the NATO Combat much easier to turn than Gamme, just because the longitudinal flex is so much stiffer in the Gamme. Of course I also have 210 Gamme and 200 NATO's. But that's the idea for me, the wider NATO gives you the same float in a shorter ski that turns well.

This is great info as well- very interesting. To be fair- I don't really find the Combat Nato "hard" to turn- but, 210cm is one hell of a long effective edge! The Combat Nato is certainly easier to squash and evenly pressure than my stiffer and more cambered E99 Tour. I can make wonderful open, even-weighted telemarks on the Combat Nato. I have to fully weight my stiff double-cambered E99 in order to truly turn it- but once fully-weighted, the E99- with rockered tip- turns beautifully!

So- to be fair- it is certainly easier to make a true telemark with the softer and less cambered Combat Nato, than the E99. I think of the E99 as "easier" to turn, because I can make shorter radius turns with it- due to the tip rocker.

If the double-cambered Gamme 54 is even stiffer than the E99, then I can certainly see it being difficult to make a telemark turn with it- especially if one has an effective XC-lengthed Gamme 54! (I would want the Gamme 54 in 210cm as well).

Sounds like the Gamme 54 is truly double-cambered- and reports suggest it is stiffer than the current E99.

The Gammes seem to have a stiff, snappy flex that is perfect for touring. My E99's feel slightly softer and give a more sluggish feeling. Although I find the E99's very easy to turn, I haven't done much turning w/ the Gammes yet. I guess you choose 200cm if you want more turning & 210 better for distance.

Which version of the E99 do you have?
Gareth

[/quote]
Cool. How would you describe the camber and flex of the Nansen? Gamme the Elder's review on the UTE site makes me think the Nansen is single-cambered...I am assuming that the Gamme is double-cambered like the E99?

I´m not enough versed in the terminology to properly use the words single and double I´m afraid but when skiing the Nansen with skins on there is very much drag. Indeed there is some drag on the Gammes too but there is a big difference which makes me assume the skins ride a fair bit higher above the snow. I find the flex soft but I really dont have that much to compare with. All I can go on really is the feet sinking in the deep which they dont do on the Gamme. However, yes the Nansen probably turns better, I guess I´m not good enough of a telemarker to truly appreciate the difference. However, if we are to sacrifice touring for turning, does the Nansen really turn good enough, or do we want something turnier like a Falketind, short Ingstad or perhaps even an Objective?

My boots are Lundhags Guide BC which in themselves should have a review at some point. Super stiff BC-boots with removable wool liner.

I concur with Bob! I would like to know more about this boot!

Review coming up as soon as I can...

Grip: Super good with 45mm kicker skin.

Which skin are you using- mohair or nylon?
Mohair.

Longitudinal stability is a big deal when it comes to XC skiing. Many of the"XCD" designs are easily reverse-flexed in order to facilitate downhill turns, but this can render them almost useless in deep snow if they are narrow underfoot. My thoughts are that tip-rocker combined with full-length stability/flex is the key to offering a reasonable balance between XC and D performance.

I think you are right here. I would also like to question; when going downhill in sufficiently deep snow does the reverse camber do any big difference to the turn? If the whole of the ski is already in contact with the snow?

Does the Gamme 54 have more tip rocker than the Nansen?
I will answer this later (skis in basement many stairs down)

I would expect that the Gamme 54- with its rockered tip- is easier to turn than the Combat Nato...

And with my current experiences on the Storetind/FT68- perhaps it is actually the Ingstad that is redundant...I am sure that the Gamme 54 is faster than the Ingstad in everything except truly deep snow- but when the snow is deep the FT68 offers excellent XC performance (and is a superb downhill ski!)

Perhaps the best quiver would be a Gamme 54 and a FT68- as opposed to a Gamme 54 and an Ingstad...

This is interesting and for me one of the big questions in the years to come. Since I really like the Gamme for XCd, if (when!) I purchase another ski it will probably be relatively aimed at xcD, and also probably aimed at deeper snow since the Gamme is fairly narrow. At the moment I feel like the extra turniness is not enough to bring out the Nansen since the Gamme is so much more fun. A new ski would have to be either significantly more turny, or improve deep snow capabilities.

Do you guys think a ski like the Falketind would be enjoyable on NNN-BC?

Petetheswede wrote: Do you guys think a ski like the Falketind would be enjoyable on NNN-BC?

If I bought the FT62- NNNBC.

I have the Storetind/FT68- although it is only 68mm, it is a stiff and powerful ski- I am not aware of a NNNBC boot that would offer enough support/leverage for this ski (at least for a mere mortal like me)- I am using my T4 boots with the ST/FT68 almost exclusively at this time.

>>Which version of the E99 do you have?

I've used 3 different vintages going back about 10 years. As soon as I started skiing the Gamme I thought, oh yeah this is familiar....E99! They're similar but I find the Gamme has a stiffer, more solid feeling. It could be from the thicker edges.

>>Which version of the E99 do you have?

I've used 3 different vintages going back about 10 years. As soon as I started skiing the Gamme I thought, oh yeah this is familiar....E99! They're similar but I find the Gamme has a stiffer, more solid feeling. It could be from the thicker edges. I don't have as much experience tele-skiing the Gamme but the tip flex, longitudinal flex, and camber all seem stiffer than the E99, so I'm thinking they might be a little harder to turn.

A quick uodate from the Swedish mountains. Yes the Gamme can turn. Today I climbed a Hill with appropriate angle for my skill (low) and was able to mostly link turns for a couple hundred vert. Sure sometimes i had to throw in a plow or save myself with the poles but for me thats ok. Note this was not Nice powder on solid base but mushy halfmolten previously crust of different degrees of mushiness.

Absolutely, its wat better åt k&g than turning but still, weight the edges and it does turn. And while touring truth the mush. Rocker is there. The tips mostly rise to the surface when the ski sinks.

Super happy!