Ski recommendations for a XCD novice

[Erik H]

Hello everyone, I have been doing some backcountry nordic touring with my family and greatly enjoy the downhills on my edgeless skinny skis. However, my dad is not quite as comfortable on edgeless skis and so I am trying to find him a wider waxless metal edged ski that he will enjoy more on the downhills. My dad is a fairly good Alpine skier and knows how to do parallel turns. I was thinking about Fischer's traverse 78. Would this be a good ski for someone how hasn't previously done turns on Nordic skis? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I have also been wanting a metal edged waxless ski for myself. I consider myself to be quite good at downhills, I have been using Fischer's adventure 62, which is double cambered and was wanting something slightly wider with a metal edge. would a pair of transnordic 66 skis be a good fit?

Thanks, Erik

[CwmRaider]

Hi @Erik H
Is he going to try and cover distance with his skis as well or mostly up and down?
Do the skis need to have a patterned base or is grip wax / short skins an acceptable alternative?

The Fischer Traverse 78 is a good all-round nordic touring ski with a good fishscale pattern waxless base. But any nordic ski is tricky to turn depending on snow conditions, and how easy they are to turn depends a lot on the boot used.
The T78 is more forgiving than the Transnordic 66 in terms of turns, at the cost of some loss of efficiency. I would say it is a good "quiver of one" ski for XC tours, perhaps the best option if a waxless base is a requirement.

Transnordic 66 is a great ski too but has less sidecut and is narrower than the Traverse 78. This makes it more efficient in terms of distance covering but less float and less turny. The steel edges certainly help with turns and traverses on hard snow and ice vs the Adventure 62, but there is not enough sidecut on the TN66 to really help you carve.

[Manney]

Think about pace too. A wider, steel edge ski won’t be as fast under an older gent’s feet. So if you’re skiing as a family, think about something that will help close the gap…

… 3/4” edge skis… slightly narrower… longer. Maybe a camber and a half if mostly skiing hard pack or on groomed trails. Lower camber if powder, ungroomed. Softer camber if climbing. Skins if really climbing.

Boot binding selection important too. If he has good balance, ankle strength/control, kicking and glossing skills, you can go with a slightly lighter boot-binding for gently rolling terrain. Heavier, stiffer setup for moderate hills.

[Erik H]

Thanks for the input, I think we'll be getting him the 78. After trying my skis, my Dad really likes how well Fischer's otx crown grips and so that will be a big improvement over his current skis.
For bindings I am thinking about xplore with Alpina Alaska boots. An important factor for this set up is that it needs to be pretty light weight, would this be a good combo?

[Manney]

The Fischers might be a smidge narrow in the middle… 60mm, right? Most of the places selling Xplore quote minimum ski width of ~65-68mm.

Xplore is a fine binding tho… so double check with your shop. If they recommend against it, your options are a wider ski or NNN-BC or 75mm pin type binding.

The best boot is always the one that fits the best. Have him try lots and decide.

[phoenix]

Not quite clear on what sort of trails, or lack of, your backcountry tours look like, but I did have a few very fine days skiing at and around Telluride the end of March, including an afternoon cruising the Telluride Nordic trails. The nordic tour I did with my daughter was on a previously groomed trail with a couple of inches of fresh, winding thru the hills. I haven'd been to Durango (yet), but I think you have some beautiful terrain for "xcd" there, as I was amazed at the opportunities elsewhere in the San Juans.

I get the skier profile for you, and your dad (he and I are probably about the same age), and what I was thinking for the kind of skiing I do the most, which is about what I think you describe... I'd take my Voile Objectives. Of course you'd want a suitable boot and binding to go with it. Or, some Madshus whatever the widest one is now called; again, with more of a boot and binding than the light edgeless rigs. I'd definitely want some float and turnability, which both these offer, and be ok with the tradeoff in trackability and efficiency a skinnir ski would have. It's not the edges that make a ski handle better for turns necessarily; sidecut and flex have a bigger role in soft snow... which I assume you mostly would be on. Just my thoughts and experience.

[CwmRaider]

The Fischers might be a smidge narrow in the middle… 60mm, right? Most of the places selling Xplore quote minimum ski width of ~65-68mm.

There is no such minimum ski width for Xplore bindings other than they are meant for Nordic BC XC gear. They have the same mounting width as NNN-BC and can be mounted on skis 48mm wide underfoot and upwards. No idea where the 65 to 68mm minimum width figures come from. Do you have a source for these figures?
The increased torsional stiffness from Xplore over NNN-BC may be most beneficial with relatively wide skis, so this may be where you reap the most benefit vs. extra cost over NNN-BC. There is no practical downside of using Xplore on narrower BC skis.
Quote from Aventure Nordique https://en.aventurenordique.com/binding ... track.html
"The Rottefella Xplore is compatible with all Nordic touring skis, including those with the widest sidecut."

Quote from Fjellsport.no: Suggested use from Mountain Race 48 (48mm underfoot) to narrow-ish AT skis

@Erik H Yes the Fischer Offtrack Crown is the best waxless pattern for grip.
Regarding @phoenix suggestion for wider skis - this depends on the tour profile. For more up&down a good Fischer ski could be the SBound 98 which has quote a bit more sidecut than the Traverse 78 and also has the Crown pattern, or Sbound 112 - which is wider still.
The Traverse 78 has a turning radius of about 50m, whereas the SBound 98 about 24m. You pay for the extra turnability with loss of efficiency on the flats. This may be or may not be an acceptable compromise depending on what you expect from your skis and your tour profiles.

[telerat]

Regarding mounting width: The mounting width is (as said above) the same on Xplore, 75mm and NNN-BC. See also this thread for mounting pattern and comparison: https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5428

I have Xplore on my Åsnes Ousland and old Fischer E109 (remounted from Rottefella Super Telemark/75mm cable, now named Transnordic 82). The Xplore binding is narrower than 75mm and works a bit better in prepared tracks, but has sharper edges in front and scrapes slightly when the track turns. Neither Ousland nor Xplore is a very good fit for skiing in prepared tracks, but I bought it for tours involving skiing both in and out of tracks. I would probably choose Åsnes Mountain Race 48, Fischer E89 or similar skis, with regular NNN-binding (non-BC) and combi-boots for such skiing now, but Ousland turns better. Xplore on Ousland works well outside of prepared tracks.

I think that NNN-BC (non-magnum) may be a slightly better choice for skis like Ousland or similar if skiing some prepared tracks, as the binding is narrower and the extra edging power is of little use on hard snow/ice with such a narrow ski. The boot is the most important part for support anyway. Edit: I'd personally still choose Xplore to use the same boot as on my wider skis instead of using two different systems, and also prefer it to NNN-BC (without having used it and durability of Xplore remains to be seen).

Fischer Traverse 78 looks like a very nice ski for covering ground and some parallel turns, while Transnordic 82 and S-bound 98 would be better if you want to do telemark turns (on back country Nordic touring). My wife has Fischer E99 (TN66 now), and while they are narrower with less float, she is very happy with them both up, across and down. Picture showing her skiing Dronningkrona with them in 2005:

(With non-shortened telescopic poles and my sister struggling in the background). My wife would use her new Falketind 62 with Xplore for such a tour now though.

[Manney]

No idea where the 65 to 68mm minimum width figures come from. Do you have a source for these figures?

“Best paired with wide nordic backcountry skis with waist widths of 65mm to over 100mm.”
https://omcgear.com/rottefella-xplore-b ... -bindings/

“Best paired with wide nordic backcountry skis with waist widths of 65mm to over 100mm.”
https://www.nextadventure.net/alpina-xp ... nding.html

“fits skis with 68 to 100+ mm waist width, depending on where you explore”
https://www.rei.com/product/203137/rott ... i-bindings

“fits skis with 68 to 100+ mm waist width, depending on where you explore”
https://neptunemountaineering.com/produ ... re-binding

This differs from what the dimensional layout of the binding suggests

32mm is the width of the outer edge of the screw holes. But those are the holes. The threads of the fasteners probably extend a few mm past this when everything is torqued down. So call it 38mm thread to thread.

Idk what minimum room is needed for strength. The edge material will be inbound of the sidewall, sandwiched between layers. It’s down pretty deep… may not be ideal to have the nose of a binding screw pressing down on it, or the material just on top of it. A ski with a waist of 60mm would allow just a bit over 10mm clearance side to side. Seems like enough to me… don’t mount these bindings for a living though.

Just thoughts here… REI and Neptune have pretty good product knowledge.

[CwmRaider]

@Manney Thanks for responding, and I do appreciate that you responded to my calling you out.

Sure Rei and Neptune know their stuff, but so do Norwegian companies (Rottefella has a big market here obviously).

1) Rottefella licensed the Xplore name to 62mm waist skis (Åsnes Falketind Xplore), these were re-engineered in partnership with Rottefella to get the most use out of the binding / ski combo. Beyond the haze of marketing blabla, it means that in any case there is no lower limit at 68mm. Here a Rottefella video with also Åsnes Ingstad in the background (also 62mm waist)

2) Binding hole width is exactly the same between 75mm, Xplore, NNN-BC (and even normal NNN apparently). So if you can safely mount NNN-BC you can safely mount Xplore. I made the measurements on the diagram you quoted by the way.

3) Rei also says that Xplore is "ideal for skis with grip-pattern". Does that mean that the binding performs less well on waxable/non-patterned skis? of course not.

I agree that you can get the most out of bindings with more rigidity and a climbing wire ala Xplore, with skis you are more likely to take on steeper terrain. On skinny skis for track applications, Xplore is overkill. The Alfa Free boot is also overkill for skinny skis. I'm kind of paraphrasing @telerat here.

Furthermore - yes the wings of the binding are wider than NNN-BC and hang over the ski edges. Maybe at some point you can "boot out" if you edge narrow skis too agressively? I will take a look at how my Ousland skis edge.
Edit: nope the skis can be edged much more than 45 degrees before the binding touches the snow.

I also mounted Xplore bindings on my Lundhags T-Skate nordic skates, these have an even narrower binding plate. it was a bit more finicky as I had to cut threading into the central holes on the skate (any binding mounting needs drilling and tapping into the central holes), but it is part of Rottefella's intended use for Xplore.
Anyways I think we are derailing this thread, but I wanted to point out that Xplore can go on any ski, technically. Whether it is the most appropriate binding depends on the intended use.