Skis for my wife, split between Nansen/Gamme

[Woodserson]

OK, I can't make up my mind. Mrs. Woods needs some skis for more BC long distance tours. She has some short 169cm Fischer 88's for general loping around and Bonna 2400s in a 190 for cruising the distance. The Bonna's are the ticket but I'm really in love with the Asnes X-Skin system and it'll work great for the tours I'm thinking, mostly flat, distance, soft snow, possibly breaking trail, maybe some hills. We get so much variable snow that the Bonnas are limited to the cold dry stuff and the XSkin solves this problem.

This is for distance. Think 15miles in the woods. We want efficiency here (which is why I'm kind of ruling out the 88's)

I'm really split between the Nansen and the Gamme. The Nansen, no rocker, the Gamme, rocker. The Nansen comes as the Cecile too, so she doesn't have to have some old guy staring at her all day (though Nansen was like, the Man). I can probably get Nansen/Cecile for a little cheaper than Gamme.

I hope BGregoire chimes in, because I think he has Nansen/Cecile for his intrepid partner and I wonder what she thinks.

My wife is slender, 5'6" and 125lbs or so, not very muscley, more finesse. I'm thinking 185cm.

Anyone have any thoughts? I can figure this all out mostly, but it I'm wondering if I'm missing anything.

[CwmRaider]

This video has a "theoretical" comparison between most of the skis. The video is a few years old now, and has been discussed here before, but to my recollection not by people understanding Norwegian.

http://www.fftv.no/fjellskiskolen-ep-3-valg-av-ski

In this video the skis properties are presented graphically. The X axis is efficiency, the Y axis is turnability, the size of the red circles is "bæreevne" = carrying capacity or flotation, a combined factor of stiffness and width.

I think this is pretty accurate is because my now defunct E109s were relatively wide but not very stiff, resulting in the skis flexing through while going through deep snow (not in downhills but while cruising in deep powder), this is exactly as described.

The Gamme is presented as a more efficient ski than the Nansen, sitting between the Nansen and the Amundsen, whereas the Nansen is easier to turn due to more sidecut. The Nansen is a bit wider, but the Gamme a bit stiffer, hence a similar overall "carrying capacity" red circle.
The extra stiffness of the Gamme somewhat compromises turnability but this is compensated by having the widest part of the ski further backward.

The Amundsen is widely known here as a great ski for long distance skiing on mountain plateaux where turnability is not at all of concern.

I have new Nansens since May (to replace my now defunct E109s) but I have not used them yet. I spent a lot of time reading about the different Åsnes skis on Norwegian forums before buying.
Efficiency of my E109s (crown pattern!) was fine for 25 km tours. For me, turnability in downhills was the main point in getting the Nansens over the Gamme.

There is some confusion in Norwegian forums about whether the Cecilie is a Nansen with a different logo, or a softer ski altogether for lighter skiers.

If efficiency is your main concern, it would seem that the Gamme would be a better choice. But hopefully someone with first hand experience can chime in.

With the short skins, there is considerable difference in the efficiency and durability of the different skin types. Consensus is that the Mohair skins offer much better glide than the Nylons, but wear out faster in icy conditions.

[lilcliffy]

Thank you Roelant for the reminder and the translation/explanation of that video- I watched it many times when I was trying to choose between the E109 and the Ingstad!

I will be very interested to hear what skiers have to say about the Nansen.

We have had a number of reports on this site of the Nansen having a very round flex making them somewhat unstable when XC skiing in deep soft snow...Some of the reports suggest that it suffers from the dreaded "pool-cover syndrome" This lead me to choose the Gamme 54 over the Nansen.

Perhaps your wife is light enough that the Nansen would be enough support in deep soft snow?

What I can report-as you already know Woods- the Gamme is completely stable in deep soft snow. It does turn- but it has a very wide turning radius. The turn initiation is excellent though due to the tip rocker. Making short-radius turns with the Gamme requires step/jump turns as demonstrated by Gamme the Elder in that video!

The other issue is I would think that the Gamme would kick the Nansen's ass when XC skiing on consolidated snow? I would think that the round-flexing Nansen feels pretty dead underfoot on dense, consolidated snow? I would think that even a short length Gamme would be better XC-skiing on consolidated snow then the Nansen?

So- perhaps your wife could get away with a shorter Gamme- this might make it reasonably manageable in hilly terrain?

...........................
As kind of an aside-
Roelant- why did you choose the Nansen over the Ingstad BC? And- did you get the waxless Nansen?

(Roelant- please consider writing us a review of the Stetind boot! I would really like to learn more about it- especially if you might be able to compare it to other boots!)

[lilcliffy]

Doesn't the current Ingstad BC make the Nansen obsolete?
- Ingstad has a shorter turn radius
- Ingstad is completely stable in deep soft snow
- Ingstad has better XC performance on all snow due to more camber-stiffness underfoot?

And-
If one were to choose the Nansen over the Gamme (or Ingstad) because of its downhill manners- why not go further and get the even better FT62?

[Woodserson]

Thanks all--

I'm not too concerned about turning/downhill ability here, she has other skis for that and her turning skills are very low to nonexistent and this would be for longer flatter tours in the woods with an occasional hill.

No, I don't think the Ingstad makes the Nansen obsolete at all. I actually got to touch some Nansens and I thought they were quite cambered, evenly, throughout the ski. They remind me of the Fischer Outtabounds, the precursor to the SBound88. The pool-cover syndrome thing didn't come to mind, I didn't notice overly floppy tips or tails. The big difference is the lack of rocker as it's traditionally cambered throughout and has a little more side-cut than the Gamme. This tells me it's for efficient K&G over firm surfaces over a distance, wider underfoot for perhaps uneven conditions. Everytime I see Norwegians doing awesome long-distance things they tend to be on Nansens, or Gammes.

I think what we get between a Nansen and the Gamme is two different methods to turn the same ski-- the Gamme uses rocker the Nansen uses sidecut, both are for distance and efficiency.

I looooove my Gamme's but the slightly wider platform of the Nansen makes me think she'll like it for stability, maybe, perhaps.

[bgregoire]

Hi Woods, here I am.

At first I thought I was getting the Cecilies in 190 for myself. Turns out I felt they were too short for my needs. My partner was MORE than happy to inherit them. She thinks they are great. And that is about all the info I can gather from her on that point. She is no ski nerd, she just skis and hauls heavy stuff in the snow very very well. She loves it.

I did and still do ski them occasionally but have not in a while now. I have pins on them and they are surprisingly fun to turn on the down. They dont have as much kick (camber) as I like in that length and told myself a pair in 195cm would be better. But I have the new Ingstads to play around with so I don't think I need a pair of Nansens as well. I did not feel they suffered from that pool syndrome issue others have mentioned here.

When I skied across Laponia (2014), the same year Gamme was skiing across Antartica or so (So his skis were not available yet), we met scandinavians using either Amundsen or Nansen skis, not much else from Asnes. Amundsen with NNNBC was the classic ski for long distance and faster tours. For shorter multi day hikes in rougher terrain, Nansen with pins was a regular.

IDK. You think she wants efficiency? I don't think she should go wider for stability given her specs. I think she should go for something like the Gamme, fisher E99 (yes, fischer!), maybe even the new Ousland or one of the slimmer Asnes Mountain Skis. I might get bashed here (lol), but 3 pin might help with stability if that is truly required.

Have fun!

[bgregoire]

There is some confusion in Norwegian forums about whether the Cecilie is a Nansen with a different logo, or a softer ski altogether for lighter skiers.

Perhaps you can help them out with that. I contacted Asnes with that very question and the answer was crystal clear: ITS THE SAME SKI.

I think I copied their official answer here on some other thread.

Go tur!

[lilcliffy]

Well the Nansen/Cecile sounds different than my impressions.

I am wondering whether you might also consider the Amundsen/Liv BC?

[lilcliffy]

Gamme the Elder certainly scores the Gamme 54 as being a significantly more efficient XC ski- and the Nansen being much easier to turn- easier than the Ingstad/Combat Nato which is definitely turnier than the Gamme.

If I remember his review correctly- Gamme the Elder praises the Nansen for its flex when making downhill turns and questions why we need wide skis for Telemark skiing...
.......................

If I was looking for a BC-XC for truly gentle terrain and backcountry snow I would really want to try the Amundsen.

[bgregoire]

If I was looking for a BC-XC for truly gentle terrain and backcountry snow I would really want to try the Amundsen.

Amundsen will keep you on track in the blizzard.