snow-mark wrote:
I plan to use these new skis on rolling terrain focused more on tour than turn. They will be used in Colorado, so mostly dry powder, sometimes deep. I will very occasionally use them in a groomed track.
Hey man!
Isn't it just awesome to be ready to buy a new pair of skis and have to make this kind of choice?! Love it.
So the terrain piece makes part of your choice clear: XC-focused backcountry skiing. Which as Ben points out leads to one clear point- focus on K&G performance- which equals get a traditional xcountry length (i.e the longest length that you can effectively engage the wax pocket for your weight). From that perspective the lack of inherent "easy-turnin" of the Amundsen shouldn't be an issue.
The sometimes "deep", "dry" powder may be a serious issue though...
None of these skis are designed to offer good performance in deep, dry powder snow. They are designed for skiing on a dense, stable base.
First of all they are too narrow to offer enough flotation in deep pow...(the Finns compensate for this by making crazy long (up to 300cm) soft-flexing, single cambered skis- for performance K&G in deep pow)
Secondly, stiff, double-cambered skis do not effectively work in deep pow (not IME anyway). Without a dense base, there is nothing to support the tips/tails- when you push down to engage the wax pocket- you will simply drive the tips/tails deeper into the pow without effectively engaging the wax pocket.
Personally, in truly deep powder- I find a soft-flexing single-cambered XC ski will perform better than a double-cambered ski. I predict you will continue to prefer the Epoch in deep pow- even on the flats. Depending on how much you weigh- you may even prefer something wider than the Epoch (at my weight I would like a 205+ Epoch for XC-skiing in deep pow...because the max length is 195cm, I get better K&G performance out of my Annums, than my Epochs)
If you are often going to be skiing in powder- have you considered the Ingstad instead of the Amundsen? At first glance- perhaps the Ingstad doesn't seem far enough removed from the Epoch (in terms of width). But the Ingstad is a very different ski than the Epoch- it offers true XC performance.
Occasionally skiing in track? You are right on the money- these skis you are looking at are at almost the limit of what will fit in a groomed track. (but obviously the Ingstad is too wide)
The local shop (Neptune in Boulder, CO) carries Asnes and the staff really tout them. I would get Asnes Amundsen.
I have been eyeing the Glittertind for several years but kept spending my money on other things. Now that I'm ready to buy, I'm trying to decide between these two.
The shop says the Asnes will be a bit stiffer than the Glittertind.
I would predict the Amundsen to be MUCH stiffer than the Glittertind. (the Glitt is a bit of a legendary ski- I finally had a chance to test them at the end of last winter- my impression? A double-cambered ski designed for skiing on fresh snow over a dense stable base (kind of like a double-cambered version of the Eon). The Glitt has distinctly soft-flexing tips/tails for a double-cambered ski)
As Ben observes, the Amundsen is potentially very fast with exceptional kick for a backcountry ski- as long as there is a firm enough base to engage the wax pocket.
From softest to stiffest flex I would rate these similar-profiled skis as follows (anyone- please correct me if I'm wrong):
1) Glittertind
2) Gamme 54
3) BC68
4) E-99
5) Amundsen
(Although I doubt that the flex of the Gamme, E-99 or BC68 is very different- but the Amundsen and the Glitt are at the opposite ends of the flex spectrum)
If you are going to save these for skiing on a dense base- I probably would consider the Amundsen: speed, kick- and the increased traction of the "skinlock".
The Asnes offers the skinlock system, but I doubt I would ever use skins on these skis.
I suggest not thinking of the "skinlock" in the same way as you would a climbing skin (although they will contribute to climbing ability). Think of them as an old-school kicker skin. If you were to get a long enough Amundsen, for your weight- the skin should stay off the snow during much of the glide phase- and engage during the kick.
Not only will the Asnes' kicker skin allow you to climb steeper slopes- and pull weight- it will give you exceptional traction in snow conditions that would otherwise require klister. Although I can't say enough about the performance of klister- I am not a fan of using klister in the woods!
Sure you can use a waxless ski on warm, wet, spring snow- but it won't help you on icy, re-frozen snow- this is the domain of klister or a kicker skin.
Having done much backcountry skiing in dry interior mountains (interior British Columbia), I typically encountered three types of snow:
1) deep, dry powder (time for the fat powder skis)
2) warm, wet snow (time for narrow, stiff, skis- waxless, kilster- or kicker skin)
3) icy refrozen spring snow (time for klister or kicker skin)
I think the Asnes will give you the best performance and the ability to greatly extend your season without adding another narrow, waxless ski. Whether the Amundsen, the Gamme, or the Ingstad depends on the typical snow you will be on...