Ski Length Dilemma

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Southern Greenland, Arctic Canada and Alaska, Dovre Norge.
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Musk Ox » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:01 am

I'm about 79kg (174 pounds) and 178cm.

This puts me about 5kg and 2 cm into the 190 cm bracket for a pair of Gammes, per Åsnes sizing charts.

Any good reason why I shouldn't just get the 200s?

The 200 cm Gammes are recommended for skiers up to 95 kilos, which is a lot heavier than me. I'll able to squish the pocket with my weight and poor technique, right?

I do ski through a lot of birch trees on often fairly steep inclines, so manoeuvrability is an issue, and skill-wise, I ski like a Dane,* as they say here. It's largely going to be day tours, travelling light.

What does the hive mind say?





*A drunk pensioner from a fishing village in northern Jutland
Last edited by Musk Ox on Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lowangle al » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:47 am

I would go shorter Musk Ox. The longer skis might glide better but they will be a lot more work to compress the camber for a kick and also to flex them to turn. You will have to use more energy to get enough weight on them for grip and turns and you will have more kicks that slip and more turns that don't happen.

User avatar
greatgt
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:37 am
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by greatgt » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:59 am

Adjust your skiing.....get the longer skis....I got some e109's and didn't listen to myself....190's....200 would have been better....And the length isn't just for kick and glide....learning to do Nordic telemark is far different from downhill telemark.....enjoy the trip....had a blast on those e99's last Saturday in six inches of mashed potatoes....last years wax worked well!!!!!! TM

User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Southern Greenland, Arctic Canada and Alaska, Dovre Norge.
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Musk Ox » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:20 am

lowangle al wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:47 am
I would go shorter Musk Ox.
Great, will do, I'm convinced, let's hope no one immediately contradicts that great advice, Al.
greatgt wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:59 am
Adjust your skiing.....get the longer skis...
OH FOR FFS, ha ha!

Actually, I should just add – the Åsnes sizing charts *also* recommend 200 Gammes for skiers who weigh 80kg in the next height category (180cm +). 80 kg is basically my weight after a heavy lunch.

Height: 170-180 / Weight: 70-85 — Gamme 190
Height: 180-190 / Weight: 80-95 — Gamme 200

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2573
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad BC; Asnes Gamme 54 BC; Asnes Falketind 62;Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lilcliffy » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:13 am

Hey Musk Ox-
I weigh 80kg without a pack.
I have the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm and would not want them shorter- be it deep soft snow or dense consolidated snow.
I do not have any difficulty compressing the camber, getting grip- when kick and glide skiing and when climbing steep slopes.

As far as pressuring them into turns- the Gamme is a stiff ski with a XC geometry, flex and camber.
I personally think a ski like the Gamme is best in the longest length one can manage.

I certainly ski in hilly terrain with the Gamme- but I don't try to ski steep tight downhill lines with them.
If you are looking for a ski that will be manageable on steep treed slopes- perhaps consider a different, more downhill-oriented ski?
My point is if you are going to give up the XC advantages of a longer Gamme- then why not use a more downhill-oriented ski?
For example-
I find the XC performance of my FT62 pretty marginal- especially on consolidate snow-
BUT- I kinda doubt that a 180-190cm Gamme 54 would be that much better- and if it was it would only be on consolidated snow- due to the longer-less rockered glide zone of the Gamme. I have not tested a 190cm Gamme 54, but we do have 180-190cm E99s and Glittertinds in my ski circle (used by small skiers- fine for them)- slow and boring for me- yuck.

Personally, I don't understand the idea of a short XC ski for improved downhill performance- when one can get a more downhill-oriented ski.

Why the Gamme and not the Nansen, or the Ingstad, or the FT62? Or an E109? Or an Eon?
(I am not name-dropping bigger, wider skis becasue I assume you want to use your beloved Lundhag Guide boots?)
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
fisheater
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Occupation: Construction Manager
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 9 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by fisheater » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:53 am

Musk Ox, I am 5’9” tall, somewhere right around 190 lbs. That is approximately 175 cm and 86 kilos. I ski my Gamme at 210 cm and have no issues not being able to compress the wax pocket. I also do not have any problem controlling these skis either. I will admit on my local twisty trails I am not dropping a knee. These skis like to go straight. I do a lot more step turning and Telemark versions of wedge Christies. On my 200 cm USGI skis I would be dropping a knee, but I would be going near as fast! I fly on my Gamme! Southeast Michigan does not have a great Nordic tradition. It’s the land of waxless recreational skis, or skate skis. I prefer to ski the non-groomed so I don’t see many skate skiers. I was blowing by people so quickly last winter I was frequently stopped and asked about my gear. Any mention of kick wax was greeted with disappointment, because no ski shop in my area sells waxable Nordic skis. The point is, the Gamme are really fast, handle nicely at 210 cm, and at somewhere around 86 kilos I don’t have any problem compressing them. They are made for backcountry snow so it shouldn’t be a surprise! However they still glide nicely on packed trails.
I will also add that I’ve climbed these trails in many different conditions on my S-112 and I didn’t feel I was giving anything up on the Gamme for climbing.

User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Southern Greenland, Arctic Canada and Alaska, Dovre Norge.
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Musk Ox » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:00 am

lilcliffy wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:13 am
Hey Musk Ox-
I weigh 80kg without a pack.
I have the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm and would not want them shorter- be it deep soft snow or dense consolidated snow.
I do not have any difficulty compressing the camber, getting grip- when kick and glide skiing and when climbing steep slopes.

As far as pressuring them into turns- the Gamme is a stiff ski with a XC geometry, flex and camber.
I personally think a ski like the Gamme is best in the longest length one can manage.

I certainly ski in hilly terrain with the Gamme- but I don't try to ski steep tight downhill lines with them.
If you are looking for a ski that will be manageable on steep treed slopes- perhaps consider a different, more downhill-oriented ski?
My point is if you are going to give up the XC advantages of a longer Gamme- then why not use a more downhill-oriented ski?
For example-
I find the XC performance of my FT62 pretty marginal- especially on consolidate snow-
BUT- I kinda doubt that a 180-190cm Gamme 54 would be that much better- and if it was it would only be on consolidated snow- due to the longer-less rockered glide zone of the Gamme. I have not tested a 190cm Gamme 54, but we do have 180-190cm E99s and Glittertinds in my ski circle (used by small skiers- fine for them)- slow and boring for me- yuck.

Personally, I don't understand the idea of a short XC ski for improved downhill performance- when one can get a more downhill-oriented ski.

Why the Gamme and not the Nansen, or the Ingstad, or the FT62? Or an E109? Or an Eon?
(I am not name-dropping bigger, wider skis becasue I assume you want to use your beloved Lundhag Guide boots?)
Hey Gareth... I was waiting for you to come and recommend 4 metre long skis!

To clarify, steep birch-tree avoidance isn't going to to be the main use... I'm mostly going to be exploring the valleys, hills and plateaux around here. I was slightly anxious about manoeuvrability in the inevitable woods on the way back down, maybe.

It was a tough choice between the Nansen and Gamme, but they're doing 1200 kroner off the Gammes in the shop I think these are going to be pretty much perfect for what I'm after.

And thanks for the insight on the camber – that's pretty much what I was after! I just wanted some basic good sense injected before I pull the trigger.
Last edited by Musk Ox on Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Southern Greenland, Arctic Canada and Alaska, Dovre Norge.
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Musk Ox » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:01 am

fisheater wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:53 am
Musk Ox, I am 5’9” tall, somewhere right around 190 lbs. That is approximately 175 cm and 86 kilos. I ski my Gamme at 210 cm and have no issues not being able to compress the wax pocket. I also do not have any problem controlling these skis either. I will admit on my local twisty trails I am not dropping a knee. These skis like to go straight. I do a lot more step turning and Telemark versions of wedge Christies. On my 200 cm USGI skis I would be dropping a knee, but I would be going near as fast! I fly on my Gamme! Southeast Michigan does not have a great Nordic tradition. It’s the land of waxless recreational skis, or skate skis. I prefer to ski the non-groomed so I don’t see many skate skiers. I was blowing by people so quickly last winter I was frequently stopped and asked about my gear. Any mention of kick wax was greeted with disappointment, because no ski shop in my area sells waxable Nordic skis. The point is, the Gamme are really fast, handle nicely at 210 cm, and at somewhere around 86 kilos I don’t have any problem compressing them. They are made for backcountry snow so it shouldn’t be a surprise! However they still glide nicely on packed trails.
I will also add that I’ve climbed these trails in many different conditions on my S-112 and I didn’t feel I was giving anything up on the Gamme for climbing.
Perfect! Thanks so much fisheater!

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile V6, Altai KOMs, XC: Asnes Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T2Eco, T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch. Flailmeister. E99 Nerd
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Woodserson » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:11 pm

Musk Ox wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:01 am
I'm about 79kg (174 pounds) and 178cm (5' 8").

This puts me about 5kg and 2 cm into the 190 cm bracket for a pair of Gammes, per Åsnes sizing charts.

Any good reason why I shouldn't just get the 200s?

The 200 cm Gammes are recommended for skiers up to 95 kilos, which is a lot heavier than me. I'll able to squish the pocket with my weight and poor technique, right?

I do ski through a lot of birch trees on often fairly steep inclines, so manoeuvrability is an issue, and skill-wise, I ski like a Dane,* as they say here. It's largely going to be day tours, travelling light.

What does the hive mind say?





*A drunk pensioner from a fishing village in northern Jutland
Muskie, my man.

Not going to try to swing you in any way here, just adding data.

I am 188cm 70kg and I have 200cm and 210cm Gammes. The 200's are fine overall for me. The 210's a bit of a chore if loose snow and I'm climbing and descending a lot. The turns are looong for me. But they fly on the flats.

GAMMES (at least mine) are mounted a few CM's forward compared to other E99 class skis. I can get you a percentage forward if you want to really get into the weeds. This puts you more on top of the shovel, helps with turning, more swivel-bility which is the technical term.

so.many.choices.

User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Southern Greenland, Arctic Canada and Alaska, Dovre Norge.
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Musk Ox » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:07 am

Thanks so much Wooderson. It's kind of ridiculous, really, because I already know what I'm going to do... choosing skis is weirdly agonising! I think because perfection is intrinsically impossible and the pleasure's difficult to imagine.

Post Reply