New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

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.
Fishnaked
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby Fishnaked » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:57 am

MikeK wrote:The brown version seemed really stiff.

https://www.utemagasinet.no/Utstyr/Sko-deg

From UTE (translated) of the grey version:
Fischer show here that mountain ski boot made of plastic does not mean less support and controllability than leather shoes. This shoe let me telemark skiing down black trail on both icy and rugged surfaces with good control and without weary ankles. The shoe has stiff, exterior, high heel with good grip for ankle splint and rubberized cut edge in ample height all round. It has a rigid synthetic material of the shoe completely into the lacing, which supports without bearing sharp bends. This has sole with best stiffness of BC-shoes, and board test is performed effortlessly. No pressure points in either foot or shaft which is otherwise clear it with the greatest effective, supportive height. The shoe has sufficient width for the toes, and plus for strap which can tighten heel and ankle make rail even stiffer.
Despite my powerful adds drawn pages completely against each other above the ankle, so that the lacing loses power, and it is a little far jumps without constriction between the grate and the top of the shaft which does not provide optimum tension around the ankle. Otherwise thick padding all the way up so that the very rigid ankle rail for terminals, although the tightened hard. It has good cushioning and grip around the ankle and heel, almost like a alpinsko and pronounced "rocker edge" under ball of the foot for good ski contact and drive.
It is a few degrees colder than the other BC-shoes in freezer test, which toes was confirmed in a break of "duel-trip" with Rossignol. It is non-membrane material, but waterproof far up and seems less muggy than the others. Same shoe are also made of 75mm-binding.


Basically they say it's one of the best non-plastic boots for dh control.


Compare to the Svartisen of that era:

Svartisen BC is designed as a higher version of their famous Stetind with powerful leather, Gore-Tex membrane, sturdy cut edge all the way around. It makes the leather wears significantly less.

The shoe could benefited from a couple snøremaljer to better tightening. No plastic buckles tight there is not much that stiffens from the instep and up, and there is less support in the shoe without buckles, than in Stetind and the old test winner Fischer BCX 6. PLoS is somewhat thinner than the Stetind. Flex and torsional stiffness of the sole is strangely weaker. The heel can be moved about twice as much sideways on skis as the two competitors mentioned above. When buckles jacking tight to stiffen it up considerably, both in ankle joint and over instep - just where the laces were a little lacking. With plastic buckles tight excited it still lacks some of sole stiffness from Fischer on skavlete lead, but Crispi sitting far too tight around the instep and ankle - and without mobility to easily gangehindres.
It is easy to tighten, but the shutter button to release spennne could have been markedly better: You'd rather not start with theoretical problem solving to get the boots after a long day of hard ups and great descents. Down from Galdhøpiggen was just kneeling in telemark and make nice, steady swings in close contact with the 30 cm powder along with the new 109-ski from Fischer. You can relax more with high plastic boots down from the summit, but with a little courage and skiing technique is the joy and enthusiasm not less once you master with good skis equipment.
Svartisen BC has - strangely enough - opted for a softer sole than its ancestor, Stetind. However, we have here a new test winner in the BC class as a whole provides better support, while lacing, water resistance and cold properties exceeds Fischer their shoes. The challenger also steadfast supporters of the classic 75 mm norm, especially when many of these are made with softer sole than its BC versions.


Perhaps their complaints are not well translated but owning this boot, I can say I would not want to stiffer sole. I also don't think the cuff support could be any better without restricting movement. The instep strap does seem short. These boots made me think I have a large instep, but compared to their plastic boots, no way... I'm pretty average.

They also say they prefer the Svartisen all around to the Fischer.


Sure wish they would have had an Alaska in the mix too. I see that right now, I can get the Alaska or BCX 6 for ~$212 shipped to my door. Shipped, the Svartisen is $100 more. How does the Madshus Glittertind stack up to these boots?

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby MikeK » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:07 am

The Glittertind might be comparable to the Svartisen. It has similar features but I don't like that it is synthetic.

I have the Alaska NNN-BC and the Svartisen NNN-BC, I can help you with anything you want to know regarding those two.

Just a quick overview:

I prefer the Alaska for touring. It's a little softer in the sole (even out of the box) and it's really plush - overall the upper conforms a little nicer, and it has better laces and lacing system.

I like the Svartisen better for making turns. The sole is a tad on stiff end which makes it a little less comfortable for k+g. The boot flexes pretty nicely, but it's a little less fluid than the Alaska. It has some stiff spots but they work themselves out - it's more like a traditional boot in this sense. The leather gets seams in it where it folds. The upper is a million times better than the Alaska in terms of support though. I could snap my ankle in two with the Alaska, the Svartisen I'd likely only have sprain. There is a ton of padding though and almost unrestricted fore and aft ankle rotation, so it's super comfortable for touring. The lacing system could be better, but the ratchet straps kind of make up for those sins. I don't lace mine all that tight on the upper and the resolution is fine enough with the straps to get the fit you want. I'll tighten them down a bit more for when I want more control, particularly the top strap.

If I had to pick just one, it would be really hard... there are things I really like about both, but I could live with the minor flaws in the Svartisen to get that extra control should I have to choose just one.

Another thing to consider when buying boots is fit. Both these boots are radically different. I have to wear a size larger in the Alaska to compensate for my wide forefoot. I lose a bit of control there because I don't feel like my toes are quite far enough forward. The Crispi has a fairly wide last, I'd guess it's 100-102mm.

Alaska maybe has a touch more instep volume than the Crispi, but I don't find them all that different in that respect.

Here's a video I made a last year to show the relative flex of these boots - not sure how useful it is, but there's quite difference.


Fishnaked
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby Fishnaked » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:32 pm

Thanks, MikeK. That video is useful, especially so with me having not experienced a 3 pin set-up. I see now that there's more give/bend in the toe area than I would have guessed. The vid shows the relative stiffness too. I now see what you mean about the Alaska being softer.

If the Svartisen didn't cost $100 more (and that's before any real sales on the others), it would be the clear choice for me....assuming it fit well. Unfortunately, being I have no retailers for any of these boots nearby, I'm just going to have to order something and cross my fingers!

That said, even with the Alaska's beauty, quality looks, and great reviews... it would seem, given the width of my ski, the BCX 6 might be my ticket with its reported stability...despite being put off by the way it looks and the mixed reviews it gets. I think you should get a pair and make another video!! ;)

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby MikeK » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:42 pm

I think the Alaska is a little narrower than your current boot, but I'd go with that sizing if you did go for the Alaska.

I can't help much with the sizing on the Fischer, as I've never tried one on (and sorry, no plans to buy one ;)).

Fishnaked
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby Fishnaked » Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:02 pm

Good to know. Thanks. My Alpina 1550s are size 42 and just a touch short....so, presumably, a 43 Alaska would be good.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby lilcliffy » Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:46 pm

Have you decided between NNNBC versus 75mm-NN?

The Svartisen is obviously stiffer and more supportive than the Alaska- but, the Svartisen is still not a "Telemark" boot- I do not think that the Svartisen is supportive enough to drive a ski as big as the BC125. I really think you would need to be on a considerably narrower ski to be able to truly take advantage of the Svartisen. From my perspective, the ideal range for this class of boots is a mid-width Nordic ski (e.g. Eon/E-109/Fischer 78-88/BC90), and narrower. On a narrow to mid-width Nordic ski, I am sure you would really notice the extra support and leverage of the Svartisen.

If you really want to be able to downhill ski with the BC125 I think that you are going to want a 75mm-NN-3pin binding. Use a lightweight BC-XC/XCD boot on mellow pursuits and then put on a "Telemark" boot for some serious downhill skiing.

And if you are going with NN-75mm, there are MANY 3pin boots available (Svartisen included) that are MUCH better than the Alaska 75mm.

I know I am a real "broken record' (forgive me :oops: )

We currently have about 6 inches of very cold fresh fluffy snow over a rock-solid, icy, frozen base. I was out taking in some steep open fields on my E-99s this morning for a couple of hours. I was able to crank full-on parallel turns with my Alaskas. If I had been out with my Annums and tried that- my boot would have twisted, and the Annum would have simply laughed at me and not repsonded.
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

Fishnaked
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby Fishnaked » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:07 pm

lilcliffy wrote:Have you decided between NNNBC versus 75mm-NN?



My recent thoughts are to simply stick with what I have (BC 125 skis and Magnum bindings) and replace my Alpina 1550s with something more supportive. Though it may not be the ideal set-up, it is going to be dreamy for me compared to the old alpine Rossi skis I was using. And they were dreamy compared to the snowshoes before that. It's all relative. :)

I'm so new to this, I really don't know which path I will end up taking. I figure with stiffer boots and the short ski, I can at least get some semblance of an idea if tele skiing is something I want to pursue. If it is, I can upgrade accordingly. Luckily, I'm still fit and athletic and catch on to new physical endeavors quickly. I don't need "ideal" to know if one particular path is right or not for me.

Knowing myself, it doesn't matter what I choose now as chances are, I'll likely alter or completely change my path after experimenting. My main objective right now though is to get to my yurt and back with more ease and fun than snowshoes. Since the depth of this snow we've got at the yurt is an anomaly (ie, typically not great skiing there), I may just stick with the set-up I have as a sliding snowshoe of sorts then pursue an entirely different facet of sliding downhill where the conditions are more consistently conducive. Heck, I may end up with a split board, I don't know. :o

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby lilcliffy » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:23 pm

I think that your setup is awesome! And- I am looking forward to hearing reports on it! You are simply taking NNNBC further than I have- which is very cool 8-) You may actually be surprised by what you can do with that ski and a supportive NNNBC boot, in ideal soft snow conditions.

In my experience- most people's dismissal of NNNBC as an XCD binding has more to do with the boot than the binding.

Mind you- I do have NNNBC on my 145cm Hoks with the Alaska- and they are an absolute blast on the downhill when the snow conditions are ideal. :D

You may love that kit so much that rather than moving to a more powerful boot-binding- you may end up getting a narrower ski for more difficult snow/terrain....
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

Fishnaked
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby Fishnaked » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:42 am

lilcliffy wrote:I think that your setup is awesome! And- I am looking forward to hearing reports on it! You are simply taking NNNBC further than I have- which is very cool 8-) You may actually be surprised by what you can do with that ski and a supportive NNNBC boot, in ideal soft snow conditions.

In my experience- most people's dismissal of NNNBC as an XCD binding has more to do with the boot than the binding.

Mind you- I do have NNNBC on my 145cm Hoks with the Alaska- and they are an absolute blast on the downhill when the snow conditions are ideal. :D

You may love that kit so much that rather than moving to a more powerful boot-binding- you may end up getting a narrower ski for more difficult snow/terrain....


Thanks. A couple questions: I see that you are a size 42.5. I find my size 42 Alpina 1550s to be just a touch short...and I have some other Euro shoes of the same size that also feel a touch short. So, I assume we are close to the same size, length wise. In case I find a deal I can't pass up, what size BCX 6 fits you?

Question 2: What is "meadow skipping" that MikeK mentioned earlier? Initially I thought it must mean very low angle bunny hill type skiing....but now I'm not sure.

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

Postby MikeK » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:50 am

Fishnaked wrote:Question 2: What is "meadow skipping" that MikeK mentioned earlier? Initially I thought it must mean very low angle bunny hill type skiing....but now I'm not sure.


Yup - it's something like that.


Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests