Do I want a Nansen or Gamme?

[Stephen]

Seriously open-ended question:
Would love to hear why you think one or the other (but please, not both!).

I’m sure the answer is scattered in corners throughout the forum, but would like to see thoughts in one thread (If it already exists, let me know).

[fisheater]

Written on my Gamme, Green Man version
“All purpose mountain ski for easy turn, easy walk”

My New Hampshire brother loves the E-99, I love my Gamme. If I could only have one ski (which is a horrible thought) it would be my Gamme.

[lilcliffy]

Hi Stephen!
What kind of tur?
Gareth

[Stephen]

Hi Gareth,
I was hoping for more of a comparison of the skis:
- Nansen for this;
- Gamma for that.

I could look at the Asnes website and try to read between the lines of the write-ups.
I could spend hours pouring through TTalk searches of "Nansen" and "Gamme."

Just hoping for "I like Nansen for this -- strong points / weak points."
"I like Gamme for that -- strong points / weak points."

Especially helpful from users who have skied or own both skis, which might be limited.
Not looking for a recommendation for a specific use-case.
More looking for data I can incorporate in my own analysis / thought process.

[Stephen]

There must be something in the air.
How timely is this: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2305&start=80#p37702
I think I want the Nansens, but more data points would be great!

[CwmRaider]

I would be very surprised if the following statements are false:
- The Gamme 54 are more efficient touring skis than the Nansen.
- The Nansen are better telemark skis than the Gamme.

It's quite funny, I think only a few months ago you started with one pair?
Can you please remind us of your current line-up?

I used to be super happy with just one pair of skis (Fischer E109 Crown). The thing I liked the least about them was the floppy tip and the Nordic Rocker which made them very squirrely - but which at the same time made them better turning skis. At the time I did not even know what Nordic Rocker was, I had not even observed the effect by squeezing them together. And touring 25km+ still was not a big deal with them, except skiing on breakable crust or XC skiing in too deep snow (eg knee deep with skis on). They most disappointed when the edges failed on both skis in the same tour after slightly less than 3 years. But Fischer was very good with warranty, to their credit.

Without having the possibility of comparing them side by side (I had to saw the E109 in half to prove that I was not abusing the warranty), the Nansens are better tourers than the E109, are less squirrely and turn comparably. This made me somewhat wary of nordic rocker for my own use while touring.

Actually I followed @Musk Ox 's tutorial on how to buy skis after deciding I wanted waxable touring skis, bought a third concurrent pair this week - Combat Nato in 210. They are being mounted in the shop but from my initial squeezing feel like Nansens big brother - including a surprisingly stiff camber - this is without comparing them directly which I wont fail to do. I expect the Combat Nato to be less nimble than the Nansens and less turny on hardpack but comparatively better XC skis in deeper snow, largely due to their perceived higher stiffness. If I would have had waxable Nansen skis I don't think I would have felt the need to shell out the cash for the Combat Nato.

[Woodserson]

I should really get on that review.

My take on Gamme vs Nansen:

Gamme = Horsepower under the hood, but you need the skills to successfully access and apply said power = Land Rover

Nansen = Everyman go-everywhere but not as fast or flashy = Fiat Panda

[Musk Ox]

Hi Stephen. Yes, I've got both, and I've been getting to know the Gammes this week.

This won't be the most technical comparison – sorry!

I've taken my Gammes into reindeer country now. I really, really like them.

@Roelant nails it in the first lines of his response, really:

I would be very surprised if the following statements are false:
- The Gamme 54 are more efficient touring skis than the Nansen.
- The Nansen are better telemark skis than the Gamme.

Honestly it boils down to that. If you're touring with an eye on turny hills, wheee!, and maybe thinking about tree and boulder avoidance or whatever, get the Nansens. If you're touring with an eye on greatly pleasing efficiency, get the Gammes. Although they're not exactly hard to steer themselves.

I'm learning to like the teal on the Gammes. Most of it's underneath where you can't even see it anyway. From the top, they look completely wonderful against white snow. The blue of the Nansens is gorgeous without qualification. These are terribly important things.

The Gammes are faster. That's a great pleasure intrinsically. What they say is true: the Gammes are really good on deep virgin snow. The stiffness and the support is so enjoyable. They fly on broken trail.

But the Nansens aren't bad on deep snow either, which isn't something I've read about them. I mean: if you're trying to work out which compromises you're willing to make, this one's acceptable. [EDIT: This is controversial! Could it be my coastal snow is a touch heavier and more supportive?] I honestly need more time to compare them properly using them like that, but I don't think there's actually SO much in it. The Gammes are faster and more supportive. Although I should point out that my Gammes are 200s, my Nansens are 195. You can easily tell which is the stiffer in deep snow (the Green Teal Man). I'm talking about powder here... I think the Nansens might perform a bit better in heavier snow. I suppose I'll find out if that's true soon enough.

I said in the other thread the Gammes on deep snow remind me a bit of kayaking, because of the sense of support and a pleasing, immediate, connection between effort and movement. I still think that's kind of true, if maybe not very useful as a comparison! This would make the Nansens... muckabout motor dinghies? Similes R Us.

I have yet to climb with the Gammes on steep and deep snow.

I've already done some with the Nansens, though, whizzing about on hard wind-compacted crusty-powdery plateaux on top and then having a laugh on the way down (ie not hitting birch trees). They're awesome. They're surprisingly fast on the hard stuff. They were exactly what I was hoping for. They're flattering, insofar as equipment is never a substitute for skill, but I feel confident pointing them downhill. They're so much fun.

The 30mm mohair skins under the Nansens on new snow/ following a stranger's track/ a dusting of powder on a hard base is an absolute revelation. Seriously. So smooth, so nice. This combination of Nansen 195 and 30mm skin cut to the heel is as good as the Mountain Race 48 Skin, I've never had so much fun in that kind of terrain. I think come spring I'll be using the Nansens a lot like that. I've been using the 40mm Race X-Skins for the climbs, and happy with them too. I really recommend it. Perfectly adequate for the 195s. I haven't tried the wider skins yet. I experimented with the 30mm skins on the Gammes on really hard snow just to see, and it wasn't so nice.

I've got Polar on both tip to tail and wax of the day in the middle, instant (and recent) convert to this method, and they both fly.

Come the zombie apocalypse I fear I'm choosing the Gammes. For practical reasons. Zombie-avoidance is no laughing matter. But it's too soon to say. Maybe zombies can be outwitted by swishing, in which case I'm keeping the Nansens. Assuming my swishing improves enough to outwit zombies.

[CwmRaider]

I've tried the 30mm skins on the Gammes on really hard snow and it wasn't so nice.

Thanks for your comparison For the record, I have the same experience with the Nansen. The skin lock attachment was trying to plow into the hard snow on a skating track. It seemed to want to lift the front of the ski off the surface. The thickness of the attachment itself seemed to bother me more than the actual skin (in the case of mohair). The x-skin was much, much better in soft snow, even on a groomed base, as long as it is not too hard.

[Stephen]

I would be very surprised if the following statements are false:
- The Gamme 54 are more efficient touring skis than the Nansen.
- The Nansen are better telemark skis than the Gamme.

It's quite funny, I think only a few months ago you started with one pair?
Can you please remind us of your current line-up?

It's hopeless -- maybe I'm lilcliffy's long lost brother.
Soon I'll have the entire Asnes lineup.

@Roelant
76kg / 191cm
As of now, Mountain Race 48 / 210
Europa 99 ST / 215
Ingstad / 205
FT62 / 188

Maybe the 99s could cover for the Gamme?

I want both the Gamme and Nansen.
I think the Nansen in 200 or 205 are unavailable in NA this year.
Gamme in 210 are still available.

One use-scenario I have in mind is spring snow (corn snow) and wanting a ski that will do well on that sort of snow -- XC as well as XCD/d. I am really appriciating all the comments and points of view. The more specific (less allegorical) the better.

As a side note, I'm leaning toward the new Rottefella binding and Alfa boot for next season on the Ingstad and FT62.