The NNN/BC Truth Thread

[MikeK]

That's exactly my point. Just saying "one time I saw something break" is just plain silly and offers little evidence that something is inferior or not.

It's the exact definition of anecdote. We use that a lot because we are a small population and we like to have some real world experience to guide us, but by no means does it give the whole picture.

[teledance]

I've broken 75mm bindings too, but not on a XC trail, and my 3-pin cable options meant I could still limp out of the BC. Not the only NNN example but I get tired of thumb typing on the phone. Happy with my andique and redundant gear. Plenty of anecdotes about super loops in the BC also thankfully no one skis on those anymore.

[connyro]

That is a good feature of the 3-pin cable bindings: you have backup for partial catastrophic failure! I like redundancy when out in the BC. I usually ski my 3-pin cables with the cables in my pack as backup. They came in pretty handy once or twice!

[lilcliffy]

For now, try to convince yourself why Rottefella made two different binding plates. They have engineers and they know a little bit about skis, so there must be a reason

To be honest- despite "liking" the extra width of the Magnum plate- I have not found any difference in stability or binding strength between it and the standard plate: the toe bar is the same; the binding plate grooves are identical; they have the same degree of torsional strength. To be honest I am no longer sure what the advantage of the wider plate is....we have a mix if Eons, Epochs, Annums with a mix of both the Magnum and standard binding plates on them..don't notice ANY difference.

Also as a VERY extreme case, think of an ice skate. It is always on edge, but you roll it when you turn it. Skates are generally high top, but most aren't exactly stiff. Less stiff than an xc boot in a lot of cases. So the force comes from the BOF, in a downward direction, which is offset from the blade of the skate (analogous to the edge of the ski) to create a torque which rolls the skate to an angle other than vertical. Think about how much offset there is in a skate from the big toe or little toe to the blade - this creates huge torque when you want to roll the skate. Binding plates have the same function on a ski except our blade got way wider and our offset is less. Then this is where we need the extra force from the bail or the bar, pushing UP to roll the ski. So in essence, if we have a low top boot with no cuff, we'd roll the heel to twist the boot torsionally. That load would translate to a downward force plate to the edge that is trying to be set and the upward force on the binding helping lift the opposing edge.

The skate is a great example- but the horizontal leverage you are speaking of is ultimately limited by both the width of the boot and the height from the skate edge to the outer edges of the boot. A skate has much more horizontal leverage than a ski binding because the base of the boot is further away from the edge- the lever is longer.

The horizontal leverage of a ski binding is very limited compared to a skate.

I totally understand and agree that you must entirely use the BOF to edge a ski that has no above-ankle-boot leverage. But the limits of that horizontal lever are still determined by the width of your foot and the height of the boot sole in relation to the ski edge.

In terms of horizontal leverage- it is the boot sole that is the limiting factor- not the width of the binding plate.

If the interface between the binding plate and the boot sole is strong and stiff enough- it does not matter how wide the binding plate is. It is the boot that is applying the leverage- the binding plate is the conduit.

If it was the binding plate that was the lever- then theoretically you could add wider wings to the plate and increase the horizontal leverage. No matter how wide the binding plate, you cannot extend that horizontal leverage beyond the dimensions of your foot. The only way to get more leverage is to increase the leverage in the vertical plane.

The width of the 75mm binding plate does add much greater potential torsional strength than NNNBC- therefore it can handle the much greater forces of rigid plastic boots, heel cables, etc.

This greater strength is what makes 75mm more versatile than NNNBC. But strength is not the same thing as leverage.

[lilcliffy]

(Don’t get me wrong here- this is purely ski geek masturbation. The 3-pin tele binding remains an excellent binding- and I would never suggest otherwise. Regardless of anything else it is so versatile- and can be upgraded to much greater levels of downhill power. I am simply trying to make a case that the basic 3-pin binding is not inherently more powerful than NNNBC)

First a bit of background- I am a NNNBC convert. For more than 20 years I never would have even considered anything other than 75mm-NN-3-pin telemark bindings for backcountry-xcountry skiing. I was convinced they were the simplest, most rugged, most reliable and most powerful basic backcountry-xcountry binding: enough flexibility for effective kick and glide; enough stability and torsional strength for moderate downhill performance.

(And at least to date- 75mm 3-pin telemark bindings are potentially stronger than NNNBC- allowing the use of much more rigid boots and cable systems. The 75mm binding plate is strong enough to handle a lot of torsional force. There is much fear of ripping the toe bar right out of a NNNBC boot- have not manage to do that yet!)

Then my old welted boots bit the dust…several years ago. I ended up trying leather-composite 3-pin boots that I did not like: they were too soft-flexing, and suffered from pre-mature sole separation (happened to both a Rossi and a Fischer 3-pin boot). So I ended up borrowing an NNNBC setup…I was reasonable impressed- but still very skeptical.

So- I decided to bite- bought a NNNBC boot- mounted the manual bindings, and decided to give it a begrudging try (after trying a few different boots, I eventually boots that suited me in terms of comfort, flexibility and support)

To date, I have been surprised by the NNNBC bindings: reliable, durable, excellent xcountry performance- and as much as I hate to admit it: at least equivalent downhill performance to a basic 75mm-3-pin telemark binding (sans cable). There…did I say that?- yes I did!

When it comes to NNNBC versus basic 3-pin- I believe the only measurable difference in torsional power comes from the boot- not the binding.

One of the contemporary theories is that the wider binding plate of the 75mm-3-pin gives more downhill power because it gives more leverage to edge the ski. I have come to the conclusion that I no longer believe this to be true. Assuming that the binding is rigid enough (i.e. there is no lateral “play” in the binding or the binding-boot interface)- the horizontal leverage is limited by the width of your foot/boot. Maximum leverage in a ski binding is vertical- not horizontal.

For example, raising a binding higher than the ski edge, increases leverage on the edge. Similarly, the higher the support of a boot, the more leverage you can apply to the ski edge.

The horizontal leverage of a binding is always limited to weight on the foot- the skiers weight cannot be extended out horizontally to increase leverage- no matter how wide the binding plate.

If a binding and boot interface is rigid enough, enough horizontal force will put the ski on edge- regardless of how wide the binding plate is. Ultimately the horizontal leverage is limited by the width of the skier’s foot. The only direction to increase that leverage is vertical- raise the binding and/or increase the height of the boot.

BUT- “the width of the 3-pin binding-duckbill interface offers greater torsional strength and therefore more edge power!” I used to be convinced of this- I am no longer. I have tested a number of NNNBC boot-bindings that are more torsionally stiff than their 3-pin counterparts.

BUT- “the width of the 3-pin plate offers more stability than the NNNBC plate!” Well I’m afraid I have to argue that one as well! It is the width of the ski that offers stability- not the width of the binding plate. Wide, fat skis offer more stability than narrower skis- period. You could literally mount a boot to a ski using a binding as narrow as a skate blade, if it was strong enough- and it would be just stable as a 12” wide piece of steel.

BUT- “there is too little resistance in the NNNBC binding, causing the rear foot to over-extend and have no edge power”. (the telemarking on your “tippy-toes” myth) With 3-pin all of the resistance comes from the flex of the sole and duckbill- the level of resistance entirely depends on the sole-stiffness of the boot-duckbill. With NNNBC, the sole-stiffness is important- but there is also the addition of the resistance bumper that produces binding resistance, which produces downward force, into the camber of the ski- which facilitates edge-power.

Check out these photos of the binding resistance between the Alaska 75mm and the Alaska NNNBC (both boots are being pushed forward until the resistance is engaged).

Photo 1. Point of engagement of resistance on NNNBC.

Photo 2. Point of engagement of resistance on 3-pin.
(Special thanks to my bud Marko who has both versions of the Alaska- and took these photos for me!)

In the end- I am convinced that if you want more downhill stability and power than NNNBC- I believe you need something much more powerful than basic 3-pin.

Does that mean that I think NNNBC deserves to be called a “telemark” binding? Yeah- I guess I do- if we want to continue considering basic 3-pins “telemark” bindings- why not NNNBC?

At this point- I stand by my earlier statement- when it comes to basic 3-pin versus NNNBC- steering/edging power is more about the boot than the binding.

I don’t believe that 3-pin is inherently more powerful than NNNBC. BUT- currently there has been a limit to the torsional power and stiffness of NNNBC boots (and I don’t know what the strength limits are of NNNBC).

As long as there are stiffer, more powerful 3-pin boots available- we can continue to take 3-pin bindings further than NNNBC.

[MikeK]

I don't have a direct comparison on the Magnum vs. regular Manual because I've only applied them as made sense to me, the Manual on smaller waisted skis, the Magnum on wider ones.

The thing is, if the ski is wider than the plate, it does nothing, it's all the boot. If the ski is narrower than the binding plate, as I believe should be the application, then the binding plate provides the lever which transfers the pressure from the boot to the ski, the wider it is, the stiffer it acts. The force can only be transferred to the ski from the boot through the binding via the plate OR the bale/bar. The bar can apply force up OR down, the plate, only down (you can pull UP on the plate with your boot). So in this sense it acts to stiffen the entire transfer - you get some from pulling up on the bar/bale and some from pushing down on the plate. All this torques the boot as you are applying twist via the ankle (your metatarsals have very little rolling DOF).

I think you'd notice this difference more if you had a skinny waisted ski that allowed more overhang and you had a 3 pin plate, a 58mm NNN plate and 68mm NNN plate. With a non-cuffed boot you'd have much easier time rolling the ski back and forth with the pin binding (even though your boot is the same width). The softer the boot is, the more you'd feel this effect as a more positive transfer of force to the ski i.e. the boot would twist up less. Actually if you did this without a boot and placed your foot on different width plates you'd notice it exactly, as you'd feel the force react right at the edge of the plate.

I see what you mean that the largest lever you have is the width of your boot in terms of BOF pressure BUT, you still have all that force to be transmitted via the binding to the ski.

One thing is to imagine you didn't have a toe bar or bale. So you couldn't provide any upward force to the ski. If you had no overhand on the binding, it would be almost impossible to roll the ski (you could by using friction and side force). Try it with just your boot on a naked ski, your boot will just lift and the ski will stay flat. Now if you were to put a plate that overhung from the edge (say a 68mm plate centered on a 60mm width ski) where you could actually apply the force from the boot in a downward sense (still with no bale or bar) you could move pressure to the outside or inside and get the ski to pop up. It would be hard to control, but you'd get the force. The plate on the 75mm binding is much wider, more like 85mm or so, so you'd get even more leverage on a 60mm ski. If the ski was wider than the binding, you'd be back to the case with the naked ski.

Make sense?

[MikeK]

I just tried my little experiment with my naked Eons and my NNN-BC Mag Eons (plate overhangs).

I can get the naked ones to rock a little, but not lift. The ones with the binding is easy (not clipped in).

Also those ridges do a lot too - any bit of lateral motion of my foot engages them, so it's working in conjunction. Impossible with this hand waving test to determine how much is from each, but it is my belief that Rottefella integrated all those features to help the binding roll the ski easier, and the Magnum to handle a bit wider ski. I still don't think they really intended them to go on a ski that was wider than 65mm or so in the waist, even if it does work. The regular manuals for more like a 50-55mm waist.

You just start losing leverage beyond that.

[Teleman]

Jeesum.....3 PINS FEEL BETTER.......Better, like they aren't going to break......better for turns....better for going up.....You will have more breakdowns and more trouble with freezing bindings with the NNN though....Pins are simple and a proven commodity.....NNN is good for cross country ski areas and light BC.....You can make them do more but why when pins have done it all before and are still doing it.....with less breakdown....more fun....less money....and the wings help constantly on the way up....They also take a good hit when in the bush....But if it's an intellectual thing have at it but the Boys around here who have demoed both will continue with time tested old fashioned take a beating beaters....PINA....TM

[connyro]

Jeesum.....3 PINS FEEL BETTER.......Better, like they aren't going to break......better for turns....better for going up.....You will have more breakdowns and more trouble with freezing bindings with the NNN though....Pins are simple and a proven commodity.....NNN is good for cross country ski areas and light BC.....You can make them do more but why when pins have done it all before and are still doing it.....with less breakdown....more fun....less money....and the wings help constantly on the way up....They also take a good hit when in the bush....But if it's an intellectual thing have at it but the Boys around here who have demoed both will continue with time tested old fashioned take a beating beaters....PINA....TM

Simple question TM: How many times have you skied NNN-BC bindings/boots? I suspect about as much as you've skied any other gear besides what your ultra-strict interpretation of what real men should ski like.

[lilcliffy]

Jeesum.....3 PINS FEEL BETTER.......Better, like they aren't going to break......better for turns....better for going up.....You will have more breakdowns and more trouble with freezing bindings with the NNN though....Pins are simple and a proven commodity.....NNN is good for cross country ski areas and light BC.....You can make them do more but why when pins have done it all before and are still doing it.....with less breakdown....more fun....less money....and the wings help constantly on the way up....They also take a good hit when in the bush....But if it's an intellectual thing have at it but the Boys around here who have demoed both will continue with time tested old fashioned take a beating beaters....PINA....TM

TM-

Totally agree that 3-pins are excellent bindings- and would never claim otherwise.

NNN is not the same technology as NNNBC.

I don't agree with a number of your absolute statements:
-better for going up?- prove it.
-more breakdown?- prove it.
-less money? Basic bindings are less- but more less expensive entry-level boots available on NNNBC.
-better for turns? Don't agree- not without a cable.

Purely an intellectual thing- no it is not actually...For most people backcountry skiing, xcountry performance with some moderate downhill performance is all they need- and in this context, NNNBC is equally as effective as 3-pin.

Increasingly, good 3-pin boots are getting harder to get- and there is less models to choose from- as far as getting a good fit.

If all a backcountry skier needs is the power of 3-pin or NNNBC and the NNNBC boots fit better and there are more options to choose from- then NNNBC is a better choice- "traditional" or not.

Manufactures are investing more into NNNBC boot development than they are basic 3-pin (just look at the Rossi, Fischer, Alpina, and even Crispi NNNBC boots and their 75mm counterparts).

The Crispi Svartisen NNNBC is as strong and powerful as any leather 75mm boot ever made. It is only a matter of time before Fischer is producing an NNNBC version of the BCX8.

AND- if your backcountry skiing is XC-focused- the binding resistance and the sole flex of NNNBC offers better K&G performance than 3-pin ever did.