Please help newbie decide on skis??

[athabascae]

I know that landscape and terrain. My brother lives on the Niagara Escarpment and most years I hike the Bruce Trail and fish the rivers a bit. I have also lived and worked in Algonquin for a couple of years. I haven't skied there in a long time, but I should.

Personally, I'd go with a more svelte ski than Nansen for southwestern Ontario and Algonquin. Lots of long flats and lakes to cover and I'd want an efficient backcountry touring ski. I'd be looking at the Ousland, Gamme or E99 for covering miles in that terrain. A skinnier ski like the Mountain Tour 51, Mountain Race 48 Skin, or E89 would also be tempting. Admittedly, for me, turning would be a secondary consideration compared to efficient touring for that part of the world. Though I've never skied those Asnes models, I have several years with an Anses Ingstad and Asnes Rago (early Amundsen), and I use an E89 class ski most of the time in the Yukon. If I had one ski for southwestern Ontario with occasional trips to Algonquin I'd probably match the available skiing terrain with an Asnes Gamme or Fischer E99, from what I know of them.

That said, I'm sure a Nansen would work just fine, but slower and heavier than something a bit slimmer and with more camber.

Just my thoughts. Good luck.

[ludwigk]

Unfortunately the Gamme is not waxless.

[CwmRaider]

Simple really.
Get the Fischer Excursion 88 if you're expecting to ski more in loose snow
Get the Nansen Waxless if youre expecting more consolidated snow (dont forget a pair of mohair short skins), and you're happy to sacrifice some grip for better glide.
Get the E99 Crown if you want some more grip than the Nansens, still want to partially fit in prepared tracks, and you're expecting more consolidated snow as well. These skis are probably also the fastest, having the most camber.

All of these are good options, this is why the answer is not really one voiced.

I have Nansen Waxless and I'm happy though the grip could be better. But admittedly I have to get used to the short skin option.

My wife deserves some new skis in the near future, she wants no-fuss skis which are wider than the Madhus Glittertinds she has now. She doesn't want to "mess" with short skins and she dislikes wax. If I were to buy something for her today I would get her a pair of Excursion 88s without hesitation.

[fisheater]

Simple really.
Get the Fischer Excursion 88 if you're expecting to ski more in loose snow
Get the Nansen Waxless if youre expecting more consolidated snow (dont forget a pair of mohair short skins), and you're happy to sacrifice some grip for better glide.
Get the E99 Crown if you want some more grip than the Nansens, still want to partially fit in prepared tracks, and you're expecting more consolidated snow as well. These skis are probably also the fastest, having the most camber.

All of these are good options, this is why the answer is not really one voiced.

I have Nansen Waxless and I'm happy though the grip could be better. But admittedly I have to get used to the short skin option.

My wife deserves some new skis in the near future, she wants no-fuss skis which are wider than the Madhus Glittertinds she has now. She doesn't want to "mess" with short skins and she dislikes wax. If I were to buy something for her today I would get her a pair of Excursion 88s without hesitation.

Roelant, if I skied like a Dane (having never skied with Norwegians it’s highly likely), I would run out and buy my wife a waxless E-88. I would be on a Gamme of course. At least an ugly American can ski fast!

[ludwigk]

I know that landscape and terrain. My brother lives on the Niagara Escarpment and most years I hike the Bruce Trail and fish the rivers a bit. I have also lived and worked in Algonquin for a couple of years. I haven't skied there in a long time, but I should.

Personally, I'd go with a more svelte ski than Nansen for southwestern Ontario and Algonquin. Lots of long flats and lakes to cover and I'd want an efficient backcountry touring ski. I'd be looking at the Ousland, Gamme or E99 for covering miles in that terrain. A skinnier ski like the Mountain Tour 51, Mountain Race 48 Skin, or E89 would also be tempting. Admittedly, for me, turning would be a secondary consideration compared to efficient touring for that part of the world. Though I've never skied those Asnes models, I have several years with an Anses Ingstad and Asnes Rago (early Amundsen), and I use an E89 class ski most of the time in the Yukon. If I had one ski for southwestern Ontario with occasional trips to Algonquin I'd probably match the available skiing terrain with an Asnes Gamme or Fischer E99, from what I know of them.

That said, I'm sure a Nansen would work just fine, but slower and heavier than something a bit slimmer and with more camber.

Just my thoughts. Good luck.

Great info and context. So it seems that the Amundsen Fram Waxless would be the closets WL ski to the Gamme??

[ludwigk]

Simple really.
Get the Fischer Excursion 88 if you're expecting to ski more in loose snow
Get the Nansen Waxless if youre expecting more consolidated snow (dont forget a pair of mohair short skins), and you're happy to sacrifice some grip for better glide.
Get the E99 Crown if you want some more grip than the Nansens, still want to partially fit in prepared tracks, and you're expecting more consolidated snow as well. These skis are probably also the fastest, having the most camber.

All of these are good options, this is why the answer is not really one voiced.

I have Nansen Waxless and I'm happy though the grip could be better. But admittedly I have to get used to the short skin option.

My wife deserves some new skis in the near future, she wants no-fuss skis which are wider than the Madhus Glittertinds she has now. She doesn't want to "mess" with short skins and she dislikes wax. If I were to buy something for her today I would get her a pair of Excursion 88s without hesitation.

I will look at the e99 Crown. I originally wanted the e109 Crown but unfortunately Fischer does not make these in a waxless version anymore.

[athabascae]

Great info and context. So it seems that the Amundsen Fram Waxless would be the closets WL ski to the Gamme??

Yes, sorry, I forgot about waxless. If not Gamme or Ousland, then I would suggest the Nansen WL for Algonquin overnight trips and big dumps, and something like the Mountain Race 48 or Mountain Tour 51 for everything else, for that terrain and your stated interests. Bonus is you should be able to use the slimmer ski in tracks as well as off track. Hard to do everything with just one ski, but these two classes of skis should have you well covered for much of the available skiing in the Great Lakes.

[Woodserson]

Yes, sorry, I forgot about waxless. If not Gamme or Ousland, then I would suggest the Nansen WL for Algonquin overnight trips and big dumps, and something like the Mountain Race 48 or Mountain Tour 51 for everything else, for that terrain and your stated interests. Bonus is you should be able to use the slimmer ski in tracks as well as off track. Hard to do everything with just one ski, but these two classes of skis should have you well covered for much of the available skiing in the Great Lakes.

Good advice. I have the MT51 (I do not have the MR48!) and it's fast and capable. Heavier than the MR48. I'd use MR48 if I wanted more groomed skiing with non-groomed skiing on the side, and vice versa with the 51, more on the BC with tracks on the side. Both fit well in tracks, just the weight difference.

[mfjelddalen]

One thing that should be taken into consideration on a early point, it what intended use is the ski designed for. You can either design mostly Downhill abilities/sacrify XC abilities - or vica versa. Or a compromise (50-50 from both words), which a lot of ski manufactores does. Since you described your use as flat to rolling terrain. I would say that Ingstad (and perhaps nansen) is design for steeper terrain, because of the amount of camber they are design with. And they will lack the abilities on flats that narrower skis with XC abilities have. And you might buy them in a larger size than intended, to compensate for looser conditions (they will perform better on flats, but longer skis is harder to manange downhill turns, etc). Pål Tarje Gamme (Aleksander Gammes brother), which helped Åsnes develop Gamm54, is editor in a backcountry magazine and they compared skis, etc (mainly Åsnes and Fischer). And since you really wanted waxless Gamma54 - E99 is the ski which is most similar to Gamme54, but with a hint more XC abilities.

Her is a link to the chart that Pål Tarje Gamme made. (https://www.utemagasinet.no/fjellski/fj ... t-fjellski). Everything is in norwegian, but never mind, the chart is really intuitiv without the comments, and you can get a clear understanding of what the skis is intended for.
- vertical axis : how well the ski performs downhill
- horisontal axis: how well the ski performs XC
- the circle around: how well the ski floats in loose snow conditions/float when you carry heavier load

[ludwigk]

I'm currently in Southern Ontario but there's a good chance that I will be relocating to Western Connecticut so that would be my new ski area. Catskills, Adirondacks, Berkshires, maybe White Mountains in NH etc... I guess that would make a difference to the ski I choose?