Ski to fill the Gap

[Stephen]

Idle thoughts while waiting for snow...

What would be a good ski to fill the gap between the Mountain Race 48 and the FT 62, from the list below?
(I'm self-diagnosing as having early-stage AGAS -- I think I caught it here, but maybe I was already pre-disposed.)

Any of them would be great, in their own way, so just looking for well informed, concise opinions and rational.
Use-case would be Western US. Could be anything: powder, corn, hills, mountains, flats, open, trees, day use. Versatile.
If I had to choose between lengths (ski length recommendation based on my height/weight), I would probably lean more toward a longer ski.

I totally geeked out and did a table with specs and percents -- FWIW.
In terms of the numbers, I see a dividing line between the Gamme and the Nansen, in terms of side-cut.
It's like the skis above the line are meant for more straight ahead, and below have more side-cut.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Idle thoughts while waiting for snow...

What would be a good ski to fill the gap between the Mountain Race 48 and the FT 62, from the list below?
(I'm self-diagnosing as having early-stage AGAS -- I think I caught it here, but maybe I was already pre-disposed.)

Any of them would be great, in their own way, so just looking for well informed, concise opinions and rational.
Use-case would be Western US. Could be anything: powder, corn, hills, mountains, flats, open, trees, day use. Versatile.
If I had to choose between lengths (ski length recommendation based on my height/weight), I would probably lean more toward a longer ski.

I totally geeked out and did a table with specs and percents -- FWIW.
In terms of the numbers, I see a dividing line between the Gamme and the Nansen, in terms of side-cut.
It's like the skis above the line are meant for more straight ahead, and below have more side-cut.
Asnes.JPG

My advice is simply to go visit a doctor

I have never seen an AGAS so severe that the symptoms appear before actually skiing an Asnes ski... Stephen you are doomed

Seriously, I think that you are covering a lot of snow conditions with those 2 skis but if I had to choose I would go for the Nansen 205 cm instead of the Ingstad... but my real advice is to try those 2 and you never know you might sell them both

[Danylewich]

Cool table, I've done the same thinking. I've got Borges Ousland and FT62. Very good pairing for me. Then I've got my skinny track skis at 43mm waist, currently Madshus, but I was thinking I'd replace eventually with MR46 or MR 48 to be my dedicated track skis. I had the Nansen, but did not love it, though it's very versatile. Found it too "in the middle" - so I got the FT62/Borge combo to replace it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Woodserson]

I really like this chart and the geekiness about it, but I don't think there's a "middle" here.

The first 5 skis are XC skis with varying range of subjective turny-ness. The "most turny" are the Nansen and the Ingstad which achieve comparable turny-ness through different flex and rocker pattern.

The last one, the FT, is a light nordic downhill ski (not a XC ski) made for soft boots and quick climbing.

And you forgot the MT51. Which is like, an awesome traditionally cambered XC ski and totally overlooked. An MR48 with beef. (I'm biased here)

I like Danylewich's strategy.

[Stephen]

Woods, leaving out the MT51 wasn’t intentional, and how could I miss your secret love, the E99!

Maybe that’s the answer I’m looking for.

And, I was just looking for a sort of middle ground, based on the use-case I laid out, between the MR48 and FT62.
Nothing more than that.

Not that it’s their primary target, but the Borge and Gamme both seem to have a bit of expedition DNA — in the write-up for both, Asnes uses the word “Pulk.”

Danylewich, after saying you didn’t feel the love for the Nansen, you might want to update your bio, which lists that as your favorite ski.
Just sayin’ ...


So far, I’m agreeing with Nitram on the Nansen, but maybe the E99 would do the trick?

[Woodserson]

So far, I’m agreeing with Nitram on the Nansen, but maybe the E99 would do the trick?

Would you be on predominantly firm snow that is packed or windblown, or soft unbroken snow? Nansen for the former, Ingstad for the latter.

[Stephen]

Hummm, so important to be logically clear about the target...

Seems like I’m looking for something that would have better glide than the FT62 (firmer snow) and better float than the MR48 (deeper, softer snow) — maybe with a preference bias towards the “float” side of the equation.
The Ingstad seems a little beefier than I was picturing, but I have never held one, so maybe it would be ok.
So if not the ingstad, what with more float than the MR48?

I see what you’re saying with the NR on the Ingstad, but the Ingstad is basically one step down from the FT62 (you probably know I had a hard time deciding between the Ingstad and FT62). So if I went with the Ingstad, then I might be tempted to then look for something in between the Ingstad and the MR48, and end up like the in-crowd with a bazillion skis.
Only half kidding...
I have heard on TTalk the Nansen described as a good all-around ski.

[fisheater]

Stephen,
Since I believe this thread may help:

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... 6&start=60

I will also recommend that you search some of Lilcliffy’s other threads where he reviews and compares backcountry skies in his New Brunswick backcountry. Gareth puts miles on big day tours, in hilly, snowy, forested backcountry. He understands the mechanics of these touring skis, and writes organized, thoughtful reviews and comparisons. There are more than a few pages to the above thread, and many more available with the search function.

For what it’s worth, I think you could do a lot worse than my backcountry combo of Gamme 54, Falketind 62, and Tindan. With Alpina Alaska BC, Alico Ski March, and Scarpa T-4 boots. It took a few years to assemble my quiver, and I do have a couple pair of skis retired to loaner status. I also do not need a track ski. I don’t have tracks close to home. If I drive north, I know of no tracks that hold enough interest to me to forego the backcountry. I would track ski if there were loops close to home, or maybe a hut to hut type system. If I travel, I prefer the backcountry, so no track ski for me.

[Danylewich]

Woods, leaving out the MT51 wasn’t intentional, and how could I miss your secret love, the E99!

Maybe that’s the answer I’m looking for.

And, I was just looking for a sort of middle ground, based on the use-case I laid out, between the MR48 and FT62.
Nothing more than that.

Not that it’s their primary target, but the Borge and Gamme both seem to have a bit of expedition DNA — in the write-up for both, Asnes uses the word “Pulk.”

Danylewich, after saying you didn’t feel the love for the Nansen, you might want to update your bio, which lists that as your favorite ski.
Just sayin’ ...


So far, I’m agreeing with Nitram on the Nansen, but maybe the E99 would do the trick?

Doh, thanks for the heads up on my bio!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Stephen]

Still looking for a ski that would fill the gap between a MR48 and the FT62.
I PM’ed lilcliffy / Garett on this, and he replied with much to ponder.
(After spending some time on TT, I have come to appreciate LC’s insightful and thorough contributions!)

I have put his reply below.
One thing he got me thinking about is the type of snow the ski will be used on.
I have been using the website www.weatherspark.com to research different places I might spend the winter skiing.
One thing I eventually realized is the big difference in water content between different geographical areas.
This is an example of one of those things one might already know, but in my case, had not really connected the dots.
Of course I have heard terms like Sierra Cement, and Champaign Powder (and have spent winters skiing both), but just really thinking about how skis respond to snow with different water content was like the proverbial lightbulb turning on!

For example:
- In Trondheim, Norway (Roelent) __ 3.5” of rain makes 1” of snow;
- In Truckee, CA, ________________ 1.5” of rain makes 1” of snow (Sierra Cement!);
- In Oakland County, MI (fisheater), _1.2” of rain makes 1” of snow;
- In McCall, ID, __________________ 0.6” rain makes 1” of snow; and
- In Steamboat Springs, CO, _______ 0.2” of rain makes 1” of snow (Champaign Powder!).

Those are big differences in moisture content.
Roelent has said that the Nansen is popular in Norway. Maybe that the ski does well on consolidated snow (high moisture content) has something to do with that.

I am looking for a ski that does well on the other end of the snow moisture content spectrum (Rockies).
After reading through Gareth’s comments (that I have quoted below), I came to the conclusion that the Ingstad was probably the best match for what I was looking for.
I thought his comments really made clear characteristics of several different Asnes skis, and consolidated information I have found in many different posts on TT. Having the information in one post made it much easier for me to compare the different skis (Gamme, Nansen, and Ingstad).

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for the email- sorry I did not get back to you sooner!

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "all around ski" but I will dig into the details of your email!

I have no experience, nor exposure to the MR48- so I cannot comment on whether an "E99-class" ski (e.g. E99/Gamme 54) would be "better" in deep snow than the MR48- nor whether the MR48 would be better than these wider skis when XC skiing on consolidated snow.

It would at least seem to me that there would be a LOT of overlap between a Gamme 54 and a MR48 for everyday XC-focused BC touring...

I can say that the Gamme 54 is superb in every imaginable snow context- due to its supportive stable flex. Would be cool to compare the Gamme to the MR48 and MT51...

You mention "float"-
When it comes to deep, fresh, soft snow- at 175-185lbs I do not find any truly sginficant difference in flotatiojn between all of theses skis- ranging from 50-68mm underfoot...The difference is in flex and stability- and whether that matters depends on whether one is XC skiing vs downhill skiing- vs the "xcd" in between.

For example-
The FT62 is nowwhere near as stable as the Ingstad BC in deep soft snow-
Therefore, the Ingstad is a MUCH better XC ski in deep soft snow vs the FT62.
The Gamme 54 is just as stable as the Ingstad in deep snow- is more efficient Xc skiing on consolidated snow- but the Ingstad is more manageable and grippy in steep teraain and offers better turn intitation.

My point is that the difference between all of these BC Nordic touring skis is there geometry- not their flotation.

My experience is that I need to have a ski at least as wide as 78mm underfoot before I start to be able to "float" on soft snow...

Shooting from the hip I would suggest that there is a lot of overlap between a Gamme 54 and a MR48....

So- a Combat Nato- or a Ingstad BC would be the geometry that matches the space you are looking to fill-
The Ingstad BC is a dream hill-country deep snow XC ski.
The Combat Nato is more versatile- better than the Gamme 54 in deep soft snow- less efficient than the Gamme on consolidated snow.

The Eon suits very light skiers best. I find it-n even at 205cm- too unstable in deep soft snow- and too dead on consolidated snow.
BUT- you might love the Eon- MANY skiers do!

Hope I am helping you!

Regardless- my only straightforeward advice is to forget "float" with skis this narrow.

On the subject of the Nansen-
I habve no experience with this ski either, but there are many reports on this site of this rounder-flexing (compared to the Ingstad and Gamme) ski suffering from instability and "pool-cover syndrome" in deep soft snow. There are specific poor reports from "Rcoky Mtn" skiers regarding the Nansen.
The Nansen is a very popular Fjellski in Scandanavia- moisture-rich, dense snow and mild winters...
I would very much like to try the Nansen, I am just not sure where I would use it...
It reportedly ahs the same camber and tension underfoot as the Ingstad/Combat Nato- but has rounder-flexing tips/tails, and does not have the tip-rocker of the Ingstad.
The Nansen would be unstable in my deep winter snow- and would be slower than the Gamme as a XC ski. So the Nansen would be a a good xcd ski for consolidated snow- where XC is more important than downhill...If downhill trumps XC- then the FT62 makes the Nansen obsolete...
Gareth

Hi Stephen

Ingstad 205cm!
Deep soft snow, hilly terrain, crush som miles, ride them arcs!
Vroom! Vroom!
Ask Woods- he wishes he had the 205 instead of the 195.
Yes- please feel free to share my comments.
All the best my friend,
Gareth