Thoughts on S-bound setup?

[Woodserson]

I like my 98s with my leather Antarctics and the cables come in handy at the resort (I tour without cables on the 88/98s), but with the 112 I'd really want the low soft plastic boot with a cable for any serious downhill, I speaking as a lapsed alpine skier now debutante tele guy.

[jtozier]

Thanks!

How do you like the 98's in powder. I am wondering if the conditions yesterday were just too deep and not steep enough for these. I was getting into some snow about 18 inches deep and sinking. Or maybe I am just so used to skiing 110's underfoot.

[fisheater]

I ski s-112's with 3 pin hardwires and T-4"s, I skied plenty of bony refrozen base with that rig. I could make nice turns on the boney base blacks with that rig, however a lazy back foot would leave me sliding. So if you are in a less than deep snow area, perhaps the s-98 could offer you a bit more torsional rigidity. I also wonder if the s-98 might offer a bit more k&g performance on hard trails?
I also have skied this 112 with an Alico Ski March, utilizing only the 3-pin. I need the hardwire to keep the ball of my foot properly pressured with the T-4, I have no problem making turns in soft snow on the Alico's with only a 3-pin. The boot sole while torsionally stiff, flexes nicely.
While I enjoy my S-bound with the 3-pin hardwire, and Woodserson and One Eyed Jack enjoy their 3-pin cable bindings, I would not sell short the NNN-BC. Johnny Love makes some beautiful turns on NNN, and if you check out the latest video from the New Nordic Nerds, Bri7 makes some really nice turns on NNN. NNN-BC paired with Alaska's seem to be a popular set up on this site. That being said, I like my 3-pin bindings. Good luck!

[1EyedJack]

Thanks!

How do you like the 98's in powder. I am wondering if the conditions yesterday were just too deep and not steep enough for these. I was getting into some snow about 18 inches deep and sinking. Or maybe I am just so used to skiing 110's underfoot.

When in deep powder, you need some steep terrain to get the 98's going. The deeper the powder, the steeper the slope.
The last storms came in cold and dumped about 3 feet of fluffy powder. I wish I had something wider underfoot. Busting trail in steeper fluffy powder, you should consider skins. Big help. I have BD full coverage skins.

[MikeK]

Having the S Bound 78 and 98, I can surely say if I lived somewhere with lower water content snow, I'd have the 88 and 112.

I saw this mentioned from a ski shop out west that they preferred both those skis (the 88 and the 112) as a touring ski and a rugged touring ski over the 78 and the 98.

I wouldn't hesitate to put NNN-BC on the 88, but I'd seriously consider pins for the 112 to give the option to use plastic should I want to.

WTBS, I much prefer the 78 for schwacking around and skiing old logging roads. The 98 is more reserved for fresh dumps, in which case I'm looking for steeper stuff to get some speed (and turns) out of them.

[lilcliffy]

There is a limit to the performance of any setup.

When it comes to traditional Nordic touring- which it sounds like you want to do- the HUGE advantage of 3-pin-75mm (NN) is its versatality. With one binding and ski- and more than one pair of boots- you can have performance ranging from XC to full-on "Telemark".

NNNBC is a backcountry CROSS-COUNTRY technology. Can you use NNNBC to effectively ski downhil?- you sure can. As an example, I routinely XC ski, climb and ride wonderful open turns on my 195cm Annums mated with NNNBC and the Alaska. But, can I do overpower and "drive" a ski as wide as the Annum on truly steep terrain and/or on hardpack/difficult snow?- HELL NO! At this point, I am not aware of any available NNNBC boot that will overpower a ski as wide as the S-112.

As Fisheater testifies to- when the conditions are ideal, a soft leather boot is enough on a ski as big as the S-112. Therefore, when the conditions are ideal, your proposed Alaska NNNBC on the S-112 will feel wonderful- if you just ride those skis. BUT- the minute you are in less than ideal conditions and you try and overpower the S-112, that Alaska is going to twist and fail...

As I have said many times before on this forum- on the light-duty leather end of the spectrum, I have never experienced any evidence that a 75mm binding is more powerful than NNNBC. In fact- I am 100% with LJ here- on the light "XCD" end of the spectrum, I personally find NNNBC more powerful.

BUT- I can't put my T4 into a NNNBC binding now can I?

All of that being said- when the conditions are right- I absolutely love my Annums mounted with NNNBC-Magnum and rode with Alpina Alaskas. These days- when the conidtions are not ideal for the Annum- I CHOOSE A DIFFERENT SKI!

[lilcliffy]

Hope I was clear in my last post- despite my unfortunate long-windedness- what I meant to say is if you are leaning towards NNNBC on the S-112- I say GO FOR IT!

You can always get a narrower more manageable ski for when the conditions are not ideal for the S-112.

IMHO- part of the reason why people need such powerful boots is that we are often using fat skis that are really best in deep, floaty powder. You need LOTS of power to hold a wide waist on edge on hardpack- but you don't in deep snow...

Ride the S-112 in the pow- with your Alaska and then get an E-109 for when the snow isn't deep.