Seeking Guidance On A New Setup

[grizz_bait]

Hello all,

I am a newbie to the telemark/xc touring world looking for advice on a setup for long tours near my home in SW Montana with minimal emphasis on making turns. I am looking at the Voile HD Mountaineer bindings mounted on Fischer Traverse or Excursions. I read on the REI website that a 3-pin binding should not be mounted on these skis because of the "double camber and waxless bases with fishscales." That doesn't really make sense to me though. Not sure why waxless bases and double camber would preclude them from being mounted with a 3-pin. Anyone care to weigh in?

A few more random questions:

I know this is a divisive topic, but should I consider NNN-BC over a 3-pin? I want the most reliable option because multi-day solo traverses in winter are an eventual goal.

Also, I've read reviews online of the Alpina Alaska prematurely delaminating at the duckbill. Has this problem been fixed?

Part of me wants to get a waxable ski but the minimal fuss of a waxless base is appealing. While I love to nerd out on technicalities, I'd also like to get out the door and ski. Are the barriers to learning the art of the wax significant?

Finally, I can't decide between the Traverse or the Excursion. Sometimes the snow is deep here in Montana, but a narrower and faster ski is also appealing. If I'm not really in it for the turns, the Traverse seems like a better option?

Thank you!

[Woodserson]

Grizz,

Welcome and I'll expound out some ideas super quick...

Both 75mm and NNN-BC bindings are durable (though in the NNN-BC get the MANUAL or the MAGNUM, avoid the "auto"). Most polar expeditions are completed in NNN-BC bindings. There is a strong contingent of people here who love turning and touring on both types of bindings.

I have 75mm bindings on my Fischer Excursions and NNN-BC bindings on my Traverse. I could swap them on either ski. The Excursions are a bit more turny and I like to sometimes use cables when I'm descending so I go with the Voile 3 Pin binding with removeable cable. The Traverse is a very capable ski and can go the distance but is more difficult to turn than the Excursion so I go for the perceived efficiency of the NNN-BC. Some members on this forum have both skis or at least one of these skis and there are all sorts of great and valid points to go with both bindings.

The Alaska duckbill delamination issue has more or less been fixed from what I can gather though there have been some quibbles with the duckbill and thickness when pairing with a Voile binding (though no issue with the Rottefella Super Telemark 75mm bindings). Both types of boots (not necessarily Alpina) have been known to fail, I've seen pictures of both coming out of the Admundsen Challenge in Norway-- broken NNN-BC bars, delam duckbills. Some people here have experienced one or the other, I have not but am not putting in the mileage here like some.

Most importantly: for the type of skiing you wan to do (minimal turns, etc) make sure you get a ski that is long enough. Fortunately, both models now come in a 199cm which is totally clutch if you weigh more than 160lbs without pack and want to go the distance on flats with a heavy bag.

There is lots of information on waxing in the WIKI and also recently in a thread "talk me out of a wax ski" or something like that. Also, lots of reviews for both these skis and the E99. If the forum search is too daunting with too many non-focused results just do a google search. For instance:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1521&start=10

Tell us a little more about you, specifically height and weight.

[bgregoire]

To prevent breakage of NNN-BC bindings, get the Manual as Woods mentiones and maintain the bar clip area free of snow as much as possible. The snow inches its way in the mechanism with time and hardens, on multiday trips, and can cause the metal clip de break. That is the NNN-BC's sore spot.

For 3-pins, the binding itself is very reliable. It should not break. Heck, get the Rottefella ST just in case, it has opening to pass a voile rubber strap and bind the boot to the binding...just in case. The possible failure with the 3-pin setup is the duckbill boot. For short adventures, sure, no probs, but I would be surprised if the Alaska duckbill issue was resolvesd, and besides many brands of thermomolded boots are prone to splitting or cracking in that area. The norwegian stitch leather ones are much tougher but the soles can still tear after lots of abuse plus they require proper leather and stitch maintenance to keep waterproof.

[Andy M]

I am looking at the Voile HD Mountaineer bindings mounted on Fischer Traverse or Excursions. I read on the REI website that a 3-pin binding should not be mounted on these skis because of the "double camber and waxless bases with fishscales." That doesn't really make sense to me though. Not sure why waxless bases and double camber would preclude them from being mounted with a 3-pin. Anyone care to weigh in?

After reading your post, I went to the REI site and looked at the Q&A for the Traverse and Excursion skis. Holy Cow! What a load of BS! Yes, you can use either a 3-pin or an NNN-BC binding with these skis. I use both bindings with similar skis. I've got 3-pin bindings on a pair of waxable skis with a 54mm waist (compared to the 61 waist of the Traverses), and I've got 3-pins on a pair of Fischer Outtabounds (the predecessor to the Excursions). Both have been used for many years w/o incident. Also, I have NNN-BC on some Traverses.

As others will tell you, the choice of binding often comes down to what boot fits and works for you the best, whether it is a 3-pin or an NNN-BC boot.

I've been a member of REI since the 1970s, but you can't really trust their online content, as contrasted with the employees in the store. In the store, you can usually judge whether they know what they are talking about, but online, whether it be REI or some other retailer, you just don't know.

[grizz_bait]

Thanks everyone for the information! I really appreciate it.

I am 6'1" and 175 pounds. Sounds like 199 cm is the way to go?

[Tom M]

Fischer lists recommended ski lengths based on weight. Use your total weight, including the weight of your gear to determine the proper length. There is some overlap and many here prefer a longer ski. If you are very lean and tall, you might size up, but in most cases, I'd follow the recommended lengths. Waxless skis (I hate that term) require glide wax on a regular basis for acceptable performance. The NNNBC Magnum with a proper sturdy, boot is a good combination with either the Traverse or the Excursion for offtrail backcountry use. As other's have said, both skis will accept the NN 75 mm binding as well.

[Woodserson]

Fischer lists recommended ski lengths based on weight. Use your total weight, including the weight of your gear to determine the proper length. There is some overlap and many here prefer a longer ski. If you are very lean and tall, you might size up, but in most cases, I'd follow the recommended lengths. For a waxless ski (I hate that term, because both the Traverse and the Excursion need glide wax on a regular basis for acceptable performance). The NNNBC Magnum with a proper sturdy boot is a good combination with either the Traverse or the Excursion for offtrail backcountry use. As other's have said, both skis will accept the NN 75 mm binding as well.

Tom's advice above is pretty spot on but I personally disagree with Fischer's weight recommendations when it comes to touring with minimal turns. Fischer would barely plant me in the 179cm range of their SBound series (which includes the Excursion and Traverse for the OP). It's drag city. I can't go anywhere. The 189cm are a bit better but if I wear a heavy pack it's nowhere near as nice as the longer ski. I did 14 miles on my 189cm Traverse with a day-pack one day and at the end of it was seriously wishing I was on a longer pair. Fischer is recommending up to 195lbs on the 189cm Traverse ski. That's... just mind boggling.

Short skis are just not efficient and Fischer has an interest in making sure that the "less-experienced-shuffle-instead-of-ski" skiers are happy with their purchase.

YES there is a risk that the longer ski will take a bit more finesse to grip in all conditions, and Grizz is new to the sport so maybe the short ski is the way to go, but if he has any modicum amount of physical prowess he'll outgrow the short ones quickly if he's making miles over relatively flat terain. All up he'll be over 200lbs with a 10lbs daypack and boots and clothes. The Off-Crown scales are so well designed and take over such a long area of the ski that I find them more than suitable. Wax the glide area with Swix Polar (described in the wiki) and Bob's Yer Uncle.

IF Grizz is wanting to turn more and the skiing is either up and then down with *minimal* flats, then YES the Fischer weight recommendations are usually better suited, I much prefer turning my 179cm Sbound98's than the 189cm skis, but I am usually not going to use these skis for turning anyway.

Grizz may also want to look out for a pair of Crown E99's. I think Fischer would put me in a 200cm ski, and I ski the 205cm, and I'm very happy with that, their weight recs are more standard for this ski.

There are a few skiers here on the 199 Traverse/Excursion, I hope they chime in with their weights too and honest recommendations for a newer skier.

[12gaugesage]

Hey griz, welcome!

I'm no expert skier, but I ski a lot, and have ended up with a pretty deep quiver, so I do have some perspective to offer.

I have the T78 in 189 and the E88 in 199, love them both. I'm 6' 1" 230+ geared up.

The longer 88 glides noticably better despite it's width, and still grips/climbs well for me, it of course floats a bit better too but it's obviously heavier.
I have found the extra length gives me more fore/aft stability, a larger "pocket" that I can operate within, more forgiving, allowing more time to recover my position when I get sloppy. (Milliseconds, but sometimes that's enough)
It has a certain smoothness about it, like a Cadillac. A bit slower to come around in a turn though.
Both skis feel very similar in terms of flex, the 88 might be a tad softer, but that could be the extra length too.
The shorter T78 has become my go to ski if I'm unsure of what I'm getting into in terms of conditions. It's actually the ski I learned to link turns on.
Feels stiff and stout underfoot, nice on harder conditions, like late season afternoons when the trail is icing up behind me as the sun disappears behind the mountains. They don't flop and flutter on ice/hardpack like some of my other skis. They shine in a little fresh over frozen imo.
The shorter length feels more nimble in general, and helps on narrow trails, but on low angle k&g they feel pretty inefficient.

A T78 in 199 might be the best of both worlds, particularly for low angle, high mile pursuits.
Almost popped on a pair late last season, decided to hold out for a pair of e99s....

I interchange both 3 pin and nnnbc on either ski depending on the days mission, no issues. Nnnbc is definitely better for mileage and the manual versions are plenty reliable.

This sport is full of compromises and overlap.

[lilcliffy]

Hello and Welcome "grizz_bait"! (I am assuming you are meaning grizzly bear bait? I have had a couple of extremely intimidating experiences with grizzly bears!!! I hope you don't make a habit of this!)

I am a newbie to the telemark/xc touring world

Very exciting and you have come to the right place to find people that want to talk endlessly about it!!

looking for advice on a setup for long tours near my home in SW Montana with minimal emphasis on making turns. I am looking at the Voile HD Mountaineer bindings mounted on Fischer Traverse or Excursions. I read on the REI website that a 3-pin binding should not be mounted on these skis because of the "double camber and waxless bases with fishscales." That doesn't really make sense to me though. Not sure why waxless bases and double camber would preclude them from being mounted with a 3-pin. Anyone care to weigh in?

Bizaare- 3-pin and NNNBC are equally suitable for both the 78&88.

should I consider NNN-BC over a 3-pin? I want the most reliable option because multi-day solo traverses in winter are an eventual goal.

Both reliable- from my perspective, the notion that 3-pin is more reliable- because NNNBC is inherently prone to breakage- is a load of bull. Both are reliable enough to use in the wilderness- both have the potential for failure- especially if they are not maintained as Ben describes above.

I would not go on a true wilderness multi-day expedition on 3-pin without the cable backup- or the Rotte ST which has slots that allow one to easily mount heel straps.

If I was going on a true wilderness multi-day expedition on NNNBC- I would consider bringing an extra set of bindings...ESPECIALLY in VERY cold arctic polar conditions- just in case of the ice-caused breakage that Ben speaks of. I wonder how often this actually happens...

Regardless- plan for failure and bring what you need so that you don't die!

Part of me wants to get a waxable ski but the minimal fuss of a waxless base is appealing. While I love to nerd out on technicalities, I'd also like to get out the door and ski. Are the barriers to learning the art of the wax significant?

Grip and kick waxing for Nordic BC ski touring is fun and it is not time-consuming. I get out my door and ski almost every day on grip wax- when the snow is easy to grip wax for.

There are certainly snow conditions that can be more difficult to kick wax for...

What is the weather/temperature and snow like that you will be skiing in?

Finally, I can't decide between the Traverse or the Excursion. Sometimes the snow is deep here in Montana, but a narrower and faster ski is also appealing. If I'm not really in it for the turns, the Traverse seems like a better option?

I think it best to describe both of these skis as having "camber-and-a-half" underfoot. Although they are double-cambered- they certainly do not have the double camber of skis like the Fischer E-99 and Asnes Gamme 54/Amundsen/Ousland.

If one gets the 78/88 long enough, they both perform well as XC skis in all snow conditions- including dense consolidated snow. The 88 is wider, offers more stability and grip- the 78 is narrower and faster.

If you are thinking of the 78 because of its greater XC efficiency, then I would aslo seriously consider an "E-99-class" ski (e.g. E-99/Gamme 54). An E-99/Gamme 54 is even more efficient than the 78; just as stable; and very similar downhill. If you get a 78 long enough to be an efficient XC ski- it is no easier to turn than an E-99. I personally struggle to see the advantage of the 78 over the E-99...I guess the 78 does have both the Off-track Crown base and the Easy-Skin- while the E-99 Crown does not have the Easy-Skin insert (FISCHER please add the Easy-Skin to the E-99 Crown!!!)

So- I personally would choose an E-99/Gamme 54 over the 78.

So- if you consider the 88 because of its greater grip and flotation- then go for it- if hills are truly not a concern. Personally- I do not find the 88 to be any easier to turn than the 78. I have both of these skis in 199cm lengths. I have no doubt that they are easier to turn in a short length- though less efficient XC- though I am confident a short E-99 would be just as easy to turn as a short 78/88.

Sorry about my rambling!!
My advice- consider an E-99 class as well as the 78/88.

[lilcliffy]

Short skis are just not efficient and Fischer has an interest in making sure that the "less-experienced-shuffle-instead-of-ski" skiers are happy with their purchase.

THIS.

he'll outgrow the short ones quickly if he's making miles over relatively flat terain.

THIS.

IF Grizz is wanting to turn more and the skiing is either up and then down with *minimal* flats, then YES the Fischer weight recommendations are usually better suited, I much prefer turning my 179cm Sbound98's than the 189cm skis, but I am usually not going to use these skis for turning anyway.

Asnes Ingstad BC instead! (Or Fischer E-109 if the snow is not too deep!)

Grizz may also want to look out for a pair of Crown E99's. I think Fischer would put me in a 200cm ski, and I ski the 205cm, and I'm very happy with that, their weight recs are more standard for this ski.

Ooops- missed this- Woods beat me to this one!

Again- strongly recommend considering the E-99 type ski if you are considering the 78 for its greater XC performance over the 88.