Thoughts on S-bound setup?

[jtozier]

Hey Everyone,

I am about to purchase a setup for tooling around in Big Sky, Montana. Looking to ski back a mile or two on broken trails then getting off trail to hit some low angle mild slopes. Mostly to make my dog walks more of an adventure.

I just ordered the Alpina Alaska NNN boots. I was sure I wanted the s-bound 98 but I started demoing them yesterday. They do not have the 112 but I think that is what I want. The 98 was sinking pretty good in our snow yesterday and was limiting the speed I could catch coming down the low angle slopes.

Now do you think I would be able to turn the 112 with the NNN BC Manual bindings? I am 5'10'' and 175 so I was thinking I would get the 189 length.

Thanks!

[MikeK]

Any reason you are drawn to that particular boot/binding setup?

I understand the logic with wanting to use the S-112 and the boots and bindings may or may not work for you depending on your experience or desired outcome.

Did you demo the S98 with a similar boot/binding combo? And how did that feel?

[jtozier]

I tried the 98s, bindings, and a less supportive boot out yesterday. The alaska boots are on their way, they should offer some great support. The boots I tried yesterday seemed a bit sloppy, they were some type of fischer bc boots. Now I am wondering If I should have ordered the alpina alaska 75's instead of the NNN after trying out the s-bound 98.

You could consider me an expert alpine skier but I have only been tele skiing once and x-country skiing about a dozen times. From going out yesterday I see I was drawn to hillsides and wanting to come down some pow.

The am interested in the skis to support our local ski shop. They carry Fischer and only Fischer. I have read some great reviews on the s-bound series so it seemed like they would be a good fit.

What are the drawbacks of that binding? I feel like the boot will be stable enough for some gentle powder turns. I am not looking to do an chutes or hard pack steep slopes so I should not really need to hold an edge.

[MikeK]

Honestly, I'd rather use the NNN Alaska vs the NN Alaska on the S Bound 98 (or 112). It has a much stiffer sole and doesn't feel sloppy at all if you get the right fit.

There are more robust, plastic shell tele-type boots you can get for 3 pins, so if you wanted something more like you are used to for Alpine skiing (although still not the same), you'd probably look into those. Hard to say really... a lot of it is personal preference and terrain you plan on skiing really. And well, how easily you adapt to XC techniques. It's vastly different than Alpine skiing. Not so much in principle, but in feel and subtlety of technique.

The only disadvantage of the NNN binding is really the relation of the pivot point to your foot. It is closer, so it makes a bit harder to keep the ball of your foot on the rear ski in a telemark and raise your heel high. There is a little less leverage in a NNN binding, but the connection, especially in the boots we are discussing, is so much stiffer in the NNN interface, that it will actually feel more positive. I can attest this personally because I've owned both versions of that boot, and I vastly prefer the NNN version.

3 pins give you some other options too - like cables, risers and such. Really depends on what you feel comfortable with and if you need/want extra dh performance.

If your shop sells Fischer stuff only, you could try a BCX6 or BCX8 boot with those 98s again and see how those feel. They are bit more burly than the NN Alaska.

[jtozier]

Thanks for the reply.

I am a bit confused by your answer. I thought the Alaska had two versions. The NNN compatible and the 75m 3 pin compatible ones. I ordered the one that will work with a NNN BC binding.

This whole process has proven a bit difficult to figure out exactly what I am looking for. I am starting to realize there is much to learn in this realm. It makes me want 5 setups for the days activities. But starting with one setup I felt like the Alaska boot was a burly NNN BC boot that I could ski forest service roads or a packed trail out a few miles and then play in the trees on the way back.

So maybe that is what I am looking for and then if I wanted to tour for a day and ski some steeper terrain I would get a 3 pin setup.

Does that sound logical haha? So does anyone have experience tracking the 112s with NNN BC bindings and then hitting some powder on the way back to the car? Or does anyone have experience skiing a similar width ski with the NNN BC's?

[MikeK]

Thanks for the reply.

I am a bit confused by your answer. I thought the Alaska had two versions. The NNN compatible and the 75m 3 pin compatible ones. I ordered the one that will work with a NNN BC binding.

They do. NNN is New Nordic Norm i.e. the bar. NN is Nordic Norm i.e. 75mm 3 pin. Sorry, I should have been more explicit.

This whole process has proven a bit difficult to figure out exactly what I am looking for. I am starting to realize there is much to learn in this realm. It makes me want 5 setups for the days activities. But starting with one setup I felt like the Alaska boot was a burly NNN BC boot that I could ski forest service roads or a packed trail out a few miles and then play in the trees on the way back.

So maybe that is what I am looking for and then if I wanted to tour for a day and ski some steeper terrain I would get a 3 pin setup.

Does that sound logical haha? So does anyone have experience tracking the 112s with NNN BC bindings and then hitting some powder on the way back to the car? Or does anyone have experience skiing a similar width ski with the NNN BC's?

You do and you don't. You can get all sorts of skis and boots and specialize, or get something general and learn to adapt to the shortcomings. Just depends on what side you want to err to.

LoveJohnny skis those width skis all the time with Alaska and NNN-BC.

All my skis in that width are 3 pin, mainly for versatility, but given the boots I have, I wouldn't hesitate to ski them with NNN-BC.

Like I say, might help to try either of those Fischer 3 pin boots I mentioned to see if you like how it feels.

[jtozier]

Thanks man, I appreciate the help and time. I may just go for it with the NNN Alaska boots, NNN BC, and 112's. Ski them this season and then I will have a good idea of what direction I want to go from there. I can always get some smaller skis If I need to track some groomed trails for the day.

[Woodserson]

I'm rushed for time and on my phone but my take:

112s, 75mm 3pin binding w removable cable option (Voile). That way you can 3pin on a softer boot for flat touring/gentle hills and when you inevitably start craving better touring with bigger descents you can use a Scott Excursion/Scarpa T4 with the cable and really push that mofo around like the skier you are.

[MikeK]

I'm rushed for time and on my phone but my take:

112s, 75mm 3pin binding w removable cable option (Voile). That way you can 3pin on a softer boot for flat touring/gentle hills and when you inevitably start craving better touring with bigger descents you can use a Scott Excursion/Scarpa T4 with the cable and really push that mofo around like the skier you are.

Yup - this is the more traditional and versatile line of thinking.

[1EyedJack]

I'm rushed for time and on my phone but my take:

112s, 75mm 3pin binding w removable cable option (Voile). That way you can 3pin on a softer boot for flat touring/gentle hills and when you inevitably start craving better touring with bigger descents you can use a Scott Excursion/Scarpa T4 with the cable and really push that mofo around like the skier you are.

I ski the SB98s w/ that Voile binding with broken-in Asolo leather boots for mellow touring, T3 2-buckle Crispis for hitting the slopes. I do not usually utilize the cables in powder, but they do come in handy when conditions merit. If I were in the market, I would look at the 112 or even the 125 for more float when needed. (me? xcd for 40 years, western snow)