Page 1 of 3

NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:37 am
by MartinF
Here's something I can't figure out...

People say that NNN BC is okay for turns up to a particular width underfoot. But surely, if I am skiing a very wide ski, I am usually doing so because the snow is deep and somewhat fluffy and relatively easy to turn in. Why would I be skiing such a ski on rough, hard snow (for instance)?

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:01 pm
by Rodbelan
You have to distinguish between what belongs to marketing and what is anchored in facts... You also need to take into consideration one's own experience... There is no one way to do things... Some like lite duty bindings on wide skis... The bottom line is: you need to try to make your own thoughts...

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:56 pm
by MartinF
Rodbelan wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:01 pm
You have to distinguish between what belongs to marketing and what is anchored in facts...
Right now, I figure if I'm using my new Rossi BC 110 as a ski for the fluffy stuff it won't be much harder to turn safely than my Salomon ADV89 on harder snow.

If I'm wrong, I'll do something completely different with it - either plastic-boot Telemark or 'AT Nordic' (as described by Ryan Jordan on BPL).

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:01 pm
by Lo-Fi
MartinF wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:56 pm
Rodbelan wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:01 pm
You have to distinguish between what belongs to marketing and what is anchored in facts...
Right now, I figure if I'm using my new Rossi BC 110 as a ski for the fluffy stuff it won't be much harder to turn safely than my Salomon ADV89 on harder snow.

If I'm wrong, I'll do something completely different with it - either plastic-boot Telemark or 'AT Nordic' (as described by Ryan Jordan on BPL).
This question has come up a few times this season on this forum, as is probably the case every year. The answers are quite personal and often passionately held.

I've been skiing the Karhu Guide/ Madshus Annum, which has similar dimensions to the BC110, with NNN BC Alpina Alaskas.

In these softish conditions it works for me, but I feel its getting close to away from optimal:



Here, on hard crusty spring conditions, on a much wider 98mm waisted ski and Hardwires with Excursions, I couldn't really see skiing the same if I was using NNN BC:


Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:34 pm
by MartinF
That's truly impressive skiing! In both cases!

Nice to talk to you directly. I have linked to your videos several times in German forums and on Facebook!

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:05 pm
by bgregoire
MartinF wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:56 pm
Rodbelan wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:01 pm
You have to distinguish between what belongs to marketing and what is anchored in facts...
Right now, I figure if I'm using my new Rossi BC 110 as a ski for the fluffy stuff it won't be much harder to turn safely than my Salomon ADV89 on harder snow.

If I'm wrong, I'll do something completely different with it - either plastic-boot Telemark or 'AT Nordic' (as described by Ryan Jordan on BPL).
My guess is that you will fare better on harder snow with your Rossi 110s than your Salomon ADV89s simply because the rossis are that much stiffer and will edge into that hard stuff better.

The rossis 110s are 78mm wide underfoot, the Xadv89s are 60mm. Neither of these are really wide skis when it comes to downhill anyhow.

Heck, 78mm sounds like a perfect underfoot width for hardpack downhill and groomers. I would go with a stiffer, heavier alpine ski though for that (than a BC XCD ski).

Lofi's response brings in the binding/boot factor which is of critical importance when it comes harder snow conditions. Probably more so than the ski itself.

Rodbelan is a very very wise man.

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:39 pm
by MartinF
bgregoire wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:05 pm
Heck, 78mm sounds like a perfect underfoot width for hardpack downhill and groomers. I would go with a stiffer, heavier alpine ski though for that (than a BC XCD ski).
Though this might be the wrong place to say so, I have to admit: When I'm on downhill groomers, I won't be using XCD or any other nordic skis anyway. I'll be on alpine skis with alpine bindings, skiing as fast as I can and dare. I'm still addicted to that after 42 years of skiing... a case of never growing up, I suppose. I love my Head Supershape Magnums. ;) What I don't really like, incidentally, is the cultural backdrop at alpine skiing ressorts. I am growing a bit allergic to the boasting and partying.

My tele skills are almost non-existent (though I'm willing and even eager to learn). But I have been doing some XCD in moderate terrain, mostly using stem and parallel turns on the downhills and getting by okay with NNN BC bindings... more or less. Most recently, that has meant skiing on winter hiking trails in the Alps, not far above the valleys. In the mornings, I was racing down the groomers with alpine gear. In the afternoons, I was on my Salomon XADV 89s. The contrast, of course, was vast.

In wondering how to equip the new Rossis, I am now faced with three choices. The one I obviously find the easiest, but also the least appealing is to mount light AT touring bindings. Nothing to learn and no challenge at all.

If possible, I would prefer to use NNN BC - which is why I'm pondering whether that might be beyond my skills with a ski of that width. Mind, the turns would be parallel, not tele. So given a stiff enough boot kept flat on the skis, why should NNN BC be inferior to 75mm? Wouldn't the opposite actually apply, due to the added support the NNN BC sole grooves offer? Forgive me if that logic is flawed due to my lack of XCD experience.

A rather exciting third option would be to use Voile Hardwire 3-Pin bindings with light plastic boots. I could probably learn to tele semi-properly in that configuration. But what about the touring properties in rolling terrain? How badly would kick and glide be impacted?

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:18 pm
by bgregoire
MartinF wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:39 pm
If possible, I would prefer to use NNN BC - which is why I'm pondering whether that might be beyond my skills with a ski of that width. Mind, the turns would be parallel, not tele. So given a stiff enough boot kept flat on the skis, why should NNN BC be inferior to 75mm? Wouldn't the opposite actually apply, due to the added support the NNN BC sole grooves offer? Forgive me if that logic is flawed due to my lack of XCD experience.
On the down, in good powder conditions, the difference between the two MIGHT be negligeable. If you plan on skiing harder snow conditions than blissful pow pow, I suggest you try a voile 3-pin cable binding. That way, you can try with both cables on and off, using a 75mm boot as soft or as stiff as you like.
MartinF wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:39 pm
A rather exciting third option would be to use Voile Hardwire 3-Pin bindings with light plastic boots. I could probably learn to tele semi-properly in that configuration. But what about the touring properties in rolling terrain? How badly would kick and glide be impacted?
Severely impacted if you keep the wires engaged on your boots (snapped on). If you plan on removing the wires from your boots for the flats, for a ski like yours, I would just go voile 3-pin cable instead. cheaper, lighter, and cables are stiff enough to drive that width of ski.

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:35 am
by MartinF
bgregoire wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:18 pm
If you plan on skiing harder snow conditions than blissful pow pow, I suggest you try a voile 3-pin cable binding. That way, you can try with both cables on and off, using a 75mm boot as soft or as stiff as you like.
That advice carries a couple of pleasant messages! Thanks!

Re: NNN BC - ski width

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:27 am
by MartinF
Update: I was using Rossi BC X-6 boots with my Salomons in the Alps, last week... and yes, I know they are soft! But now, the Rossi BC X-10s have arrived on my doorstep and they are much, much stiffer. Ordering them was a bit risky on the one hand, because I have seen so little mention of this model anywhere. But on the other hand, I knew they were likely to fit me well (because the X-6s do).

I'm tempted, despite some corvin 19 concerns, to take them to a nearby snowdome tomorrow. I can already tell that p-turns will be fairly easy for me with the XADV89 and these boots - but I want to know just how easy they will be. Perhaps I will even be able to predict the boots' suitability (downhill capabilities) with the wider Rossignol 110s... leading to a good(ish) idea of which bindings to try first.

That may sound a bit preposterous, given the uniform snow, short length and limited steepness of snowdome pistes. But my imagination/experience has usually sufficed to fill in the blank spaces when testing Alpine equipment indoors.