Update from the XCD Knights

[Cannatonic]

Ctonic if my tour will be on trails I'll take the light gear and enjoy my turns, but if I plan to do some meadow skipping off trail I take the heavy stuff because being a walking eggshell I can't afford to crash.

Al - pretty funny - I get it, it's just another strategy to mitigate the advancing state of decrepitude! (I love that term - I borrowed from Willem Lange the host of "Windows to the Wild".)

>>>We've confirmed they are legit through email messages

uh-oh, maybe I shouldn't get on their bad side then???

[MikeK]

I dunno Can... I'm scared of lurks. I wouldn't fuck with a Knight

[lilcliffy]

Been trying to follow this one…having trouble following it…

This thread may seem a bit ridiculous at a casual glance- because, perhaps ,who cares? So what?

But- I find I do care…because, whether the gear is old; or new; old-school backcountry-xcountry tech (e.g. Asnes fjellski/Fischer BC) or new-school hybrid (e.g. Fischer S-Bound/Madshus XCD)- there is still a place and a function for xcountry skiing in the backcountry.

And if you are going to truly xcountry ski in the backcountry (i.e. travel some serious distance)- and you want some truly effective and efficient performance- then you need xcountry tech:
• light, flexible boots;
• xcountry bindings that offer a full range of motion and, a true Nordic “kick”
• skis with the flex pattern, camber, length and sidecut to offer true xcountry K&G

And if you want to xcountry ski in the backcountry- being able to ski down hills opens up a whole universe of touring opportunities- otherwise you are stuck on the flats. Therefore- XCD- xcountry-downhill.

YES- of course- you can xcountry ski on almost anything…you can xcountry ski on tech that is designed for climbing and skiing down extreme terrain…but that doesn’t make it efficient or effective.

Hell- I see people xcountry skiing on big-mtn “telemark” and/or AT tech all the time- does it make sense? YES- sometimes it does. If the objective is to travel distance in order to get to sweet downhill terrain- and use “Alpine” (or “Telemark”) technique to have some yo-yo fun- then sure it makes sense. But does it make sense to xcountry ski long distances (even in mountainous terrain) on rigid, powerful tech- HELL NO.

I have no problem, nor issue, with people using big-mtn/steep terrain tech in any context. BUT- it does drive me nuts when anyone spreads misinformation. Rigid, powerful, big-mtn tech- designed for extreme terrain- is NOT efficient in a xcountry context- it just isn’t. If it was- every long-distance, polar expedition would have switched to tech boots-bindings more than 20 years ago.

I resent the idea that BC-XC skiers are simply backward Luddites afraid of “new” and “better” technology. I personally am obsessed with continuous improvement and new technology. I can testify to the fact that BC-XC technology keeps improving! Believe it, or not, the majority of the Nordic skiing world, and it's R&D is not solely motivated to ski up and down extreme terrain!

I believe, in fact I know, that there are still many, many skiers that want to be able to truly xcountry ski in mountainous terrain (just ask the Norwegians). This is the true essence of XCD. And we are unwilling to sacrifice true xcountry performance for downhill power. (For those that have read Steve Barnett’s book- that was his point!)

And thank God the Norwegians still want to xcountry ski in the backcountry- otherwise with the current North American trend towards short, parabolic, rigid and powerful- the rest of us would be stuck buying xcountry gear at thrift shops!

What is XCD? Is that the question?

XCD = xcountry-downhill.

So- at face-value, any mix of xcountry and downhill skiing, could be taken to be “XCD”- no matter what tech you are using.

But my interpretation is that XCD is about xcountry skiing downhill- and skiing downhill on xcountry tech.

Yes of course- you CAN xcountry ski on rigid, big-mtn tech- but that doesn’t make it efficient- that doesn’t mean that big-mtn tech was designed to be efficient at xcountry skiing.

To me the essence of true XCD is ancient- the equipment used cannot compromise the ability to efficiently xcountry ski- in exchange for downhill power. Downhill power, over xcountry efficiency, is the domain of "Alpine" touring, and alpine "Telemark".

So I get what LJ is saying- downhill skiing on xcountry Nordic tech.

Why do plastic boots and tech bindings not fit in the realm of XCD? The strength, leverage, resistance and power they provide are at the expense of xcountry striding.

Any skier can effectively and reasonably argue, in the appropriate context (terrain, snow, skier ability, etc.), that xcountry skiing in big-mtn tech is worth it because of the downhill power when you need it. But one cannot reasonable argue that the same powerful setup offers optimal xcountry striding performance!?

Does the xcountry tech limit downhill power? Of course! I am assuming that is LJ’s point…

What are the upper limits of downhill skiing on xcountry tech? I am very interested and passionate about that question- but not purely as a function of ski width…Because, I for one, am unwilling to compromise xcountry striding performance for all-out downhill power.

The trend in Nordic backcountry touring is definitely towards downhill power and stability (i.e. rigid boots/bindings and fat skis).

But just because you are xcountry skiing on big-mtn tech designed for big mtn touring- doesn’t make it “XCD”- at least not in a traditional sense.

I am unwilling to give up the term “telemark” though. I refuse to see “telemark” as separate from “XCD”.

The telemark is not owned or determined by how powerful your equipment is…

The telemark was developed to ski downhill on xcountry tech.

The performance line between alpine touring on “Alpine” technology (i.e. AT or randonee), and “Nordic” technology (i.e. rigid, powerful Nordic boots/bindings) has become closer and closer (however I certainly agree that all Nordic technology, no matter how powerful, offer more efficient xcountry performance than Alpine).

“Alpine touring” skis are the same technology whether you put “Telemark” bindings on them, or "AT".

A ski like the Vector BC is an “alpine touring” ski- period- whether it has Nordic, or Alpine bindings mounted on it. Can you use a ski like the Vector BC in xcountry context? Of course you can- and obviously in many contexts, it is ideal- but that doesn’t make it a xcountry ski.

(Connyro- I totally get the fact that the Vector can outperform a ski like the Guide/Annum in very deep powder- but this is this not a function of waist width- not xcountry performance? The Guide/Annum performs like a country ski (which is why it’s downhill performance is limited) - the Vector performs like a downhill ski.)

(The Alpina Alaska is a xcountry boot- period! It is so obviously designed to offer striding performance at the expense of downhill steering power. Can a skilled skier use a boot like the Alaska to ski down steep terrain? SURE- but that doesn’t make a boot like the Alaska a powerful downhill boot!)

A plastic boot will never be a true xcountry boot- it is too rigid. Are there plastic boots designed for long-distance Nordic touring? Excursions and T-4s are obvious examples- but that doesn’t make them XC boots! They are still designed to offer downhill power, at the expense of xcountry striding efficiency. I know this to be “true”. I have T-4s that I am unwilling to give up- because of the steep terrain I can easily ski in them- but I routinely give them up because I am unwilling to sacrifice the striding performance of a more flexible boot.



The dialogue is interesting about metal edges... Do you need them in deep soft snow? No- but they certainly help hold an edge on hard/icy snow. And there should be no question that metal edges protect the sidewalls of a ski- this should be very important in the backcountry…no?


Parabolic sidecut is another design issue that does not get enough chatter…It primarily benefits turning radius on hard/dense snow…In deep powder snow, parabolic sidecut is as useless as metal edges….rocker makes a big difference in turning efficiency in deep powder- not sidecut.

Wide, parabolic skis are most definitely “easy-turnin”, and stable, on dense snow- but you still need a lot of power to hold them on edge- more power than most skiers can muster from xcountry boots and bindings.

Wide, parabolic skis do not track straight- that’s the point!…this has a significant effect on xcountry efficiency.

The current trend to add parabolic sidecut to EVERY ski kind of drives me nuts. Heck- IMO- skis like the Eon, the E-109 and the Ingstad would be better if they had less sidecut and more width underfoot. Width underfoot equals effective flotation. I can’t consistently steer skis as wide as the Eon/E-109 with xcountry tech anyway- I have to pick my damn skis up and stride my way through turn transitions- I would rather have the width underfoot. The only way to capitalize on the “easy-turnin” of skis like the Eon/Ingstad is to have boots and bindings that compromise xcountry striding.

My Eons would offer as much flotation as my Annums if they would just make them wider underfoot!

Give me the width underfoot man! I don’t need my xcountry skis to turn for me! I can make them turn when I need them to! Don’t believe me? Just ask Gamme!


“Telemark” as a class of skiing has obviously become (over decades) a Nordic form of powerful downhill skiing. And as such- modern “Telemark” equipment sacrifices too much xcountry performance to be considered “XCD”.

But the telemark turn is not the property of rigid, powerful tech. HECK- it was developed to turn XC skis in the first place!

Again- I resent this notion that rigid powerful tech is modern and advanced, while BC-XC tech is obsolete and has not advanced. Not true.

Woods pointed out that there is “XCD” the noun, and “XCD” the verb….true words of wisdom.

You can xcountry-downhill ski on anything- but that doesn’t make rigid plastic boots; powerful bindings that deliberately limit striding-range-of-motion; and “alpine touring” skis- efficient xcountry technology.

In my humble opinion- I call it XCD only if the technology does not sacrifice xcountry skiing performance for downhill power.

[LooseHeel]

Hell- I see people xcountry skiing on big-mtn “telemark” and/or AT tech all the time-.

In Stanley, NB? all the time? really?

I've been xc skiing for over 40yrs, going up, down, across many types of terrain, using all sorts of different skis from skinny to wide. For any type of soft snow, a 95-115mm waist ski is by far my favorite. Plastic boots with tongue shell removed, touring liners, duckbill modified specifically to allow some free-pivot. Floating and skimming the surface, not plowing under, so it's faster and less tiring. They turn with ease and handle most conditions like there's nothing to do. I've gone farther, faster, longer with less fatigue and all the control needed for downhills. Wax for dry snow, waxless for wet.

Sometimes I'll try out the 55-85mm waist skis and every time I wonder why I bother. Sure, they're great on preset tracks, hard, crusty snow or snowmobile trails.

Maybe it doesn't fit the new definition of xcd, but I'll go anywhere from the golf course to the big mtns, have fun and not break anything.

[Johnny]

Thank you for that great post about the state of XCD LilCliffy... I couldn't agree more...!

You added some interesting points... Definitely worth reading again...
I knew from the start that you were a XCD Knight!

XCD is cool. Telemark is cool. Skinnies are cool. Vectors are cool. Snowboard is cool. It's just a matter of classifying different kinds of skiing. I don't know why some people get so mad because they want to classify *everything* inside the XCD category... It so doesn't matter what category you are. But why mess up the classification? From now on, I'm gonna start calling alpine touring "Snowboard", just like people call Vectors and T4 "XCD".

"XCD" implies doing telemark turns...
"Telemark" does NOT necessarily imply doing cross-country downhill.

Obviously, there seems to be a lot of envy about the XCD category... Why is that? Where does that anger and jealousy comes from? I guess a lot of people want to be called XCD skiers, without the required extra effort... WTF, is XCD cool again or what? Why is everyone looking to be called XCD skiers? Did I miss a cool teenage movie mentionning XCD? What's going on?!?

All skis are fun. There is a tool for everything.

[lilcliffy]

I apologize for long-winded post- the later I write and the more tired I am- the longer it takes me to get to the point!

It appears at least some of what I am trying to say is getting lost in translation.

Shenanagains- you are entirely missing my point. I did not intend to suggest that “no changes are allowed”- or that I am opposed to R&D and continuous improvement of ski technology. I am very much the opposite. And I was certainly not trying to suggest that being old tech is a defining characteristic of XCD.

My point is purely that if “XCD” is downhill skiing on xcountry technology- then Nordic tech that limits xcountry striding performance, in order to maximize downhill performance- is not “XCD”.

I don’t own the word or phrase “XCD”- it obviously means different things to different skiers in different skiing contexts.

But- I interpreted the point of this thread was to explore XCD in a classical sense: DOWNHILL SKIING ON XCOUNTRY TECH. No?

This has perhaps gone off the rails- and unfortunately I have contributed to it. Perhaps we need a “What is XCD?” thread to continue this debate?

I agree with you entirely- there have been 3 ½ decades of progress in Nordic ski technology (one could argue that there have been hundreds, if not thousands of years of XCD progress!). I don’t agree that the classical working definition of “XCD” “flies in the face” of progress…

I did not mean to suggest “no sidecut”. What I mean is that not every ski needs it. The trend is to add parabolic shape to almost every ski- regardless of application.

Check out these bad boys (my friend in BC keeps reminding me to come out for a visit and try them): https://www.skilogik.com/skis/rockerrocker/depthhoar

True powder skis don’t need sidecut- sidecut is for turning efficiency on hard/dense snow (that was my point).

Parabolic sidecut on a ski like the Vector makes sense to me- it is a “jack-of-all-trades” “alpine touring” ski. And I know from personal experience that it is strong and rigid enough to hold a powerful and stable edge on dense consolidated snow.

Have you ever tried to put a ski like the Guide/Annum on edge on dense/hard snow? It’s a bit of a nightmare- even with powerful boots-bindings- that ski twists, bounces and jumps around like a wild horse! A ski like the Guide/Annum is so obviously designed for XCD-skiing in deep soft snow. My point is- I think that Karhu may have gotten it wrong…the Guide/Annum loses a lot of its effective flotation because of the aggressive sidecut. I think that the Guide/Annum would be a better powder XCD ski if it had less sidecut and more width underfoot.

A different example is a xcountry ski like the current E-109. The current E-109 has more sidecut than the S-88!? Why? I don’t get it. If the primary reason to grab an E-109- vs. an E-99- is to get more flotation in soft snow- then why give up all that effective width to make the E-109 easy-turnin? IMHO, the E-109 would be a better mid-width XCD ski, if it had less sidecut. Fischer already has the turn/climb-orientated S-Bound lineup- why does the E-109 need a parabolic profile?

And back to one of your other comments- a powder XCD ski obviously benefits from tip rocker. Looking at the Guide/Annum again as an example: if I were to redesign it (with “new” tech)- I would give it less sidecut and a fully-rockered tip (but keep the traditional single camber underfoot- for K&G).

Camber? Did not mean to suggest that I am opposed to single-camber in “XCD”. Single-cambered xcountry skis have been around for thousands of years. IMO/IME, a single-cambered xcountry ski will always be a better choice in deep, soft snow than a double-cambered ski. But, can I assume that everybody could agree that a fully-rockered ski can never offer true xcountry performance? How can you possibly get a Nordic “kick” with no camber underfoot?

I am not opposed to any of the materials or technologies that you mention.

I am just trying to work with the classical definition of “XCD” that LJ started with.

And back to that LJ- I have no idea how wide a ski you can effectively downhill ski on xcountry boots-bindings….

I have skied skis wider than the Guide/Annum/S-112-BC110 many times (e.g. Vector BC/BC125) but I have always used plastic boots and “Telemark” bindings.

I too am interested in what you can achieve on xcountry tech!

Are you going to mount NNNBC on the Kom!?

(And- where in the world is "Jakku"? Is that real place, a secret code name, or were did you have to make a trip to the Star Wars universe?)

[MikeK]

I don't know why my points get left out? Haha.

You can take the Knights as a big joke. A bunch of arrogant Luddites who only want you to struggle with your skiing, or you could share in a tiny bit of wisdom they might have:

"Preserving the sanctity of XC in XCD"

That says it all.

Who gives a rat's ass what you call it. But some people still believe there is a pretty important reason for that XC in the XCD. I mean it isn't called Downhill Climb To Make Turns And Dread Skiing Anything Flat.

People obsessed with turning don't seem to get this, but I find great joy in skiing on flat terrain. I don't even need the fastest or most efficient skis - although perhaps the more entrenched I get in this, the more I want better touring properties without sacrificing the dh properties that the skis posses.


I know you Canadians seem to be rather spoiled and think skiing on powder is the only surface allowed off-piste. But the fact of the matter is there are schlubs like me who live farther south and have to deal with all sorts of off-piste snow... not just fluffy goodness. Frozen over crust, mashed potatoes, boilerplate, breakable crusts, heavy dense powders, dust over crust, etc, etc...

For such reasons, I actually appreciate the shape in the current skis and metal edges. Shapes actually work in anything but bottomless; there you want a true powder ski. And I have no doubt that Vectors/Chargers work better for those conditions. I've yet to see that here this year, and on a normal year this area might get one or two days of that. I can hardly justify having a specific powder ski, especially one as expensive as they are, for skiing conditions like we encounter.

It is true, shape affects tracking. But tracking is also a function of the snow. I'd never choose to ski my widest, shapeliest skis on hard snow (except maybe at a resort for practice or poaching). The I want a skinnier with little cut that can track effectively. I find it doesn't take much 'powder' to make a ski like that behave. The only true surfaces I've found them intolerable on are stuff packed down by machines or re-frozen spring conditions.

[MikeK]

And because XCD is a huge compromise, we should think of it both ways:

Not only can it be challenging to descend, but...

It can be challenging to XC our skis.


In this sense we should focus on our XC technique on XCD skis as well as our D technique.

Stuff that we can get away with skiing on groomed tracks may not be the same.

For striding, I find it's INCREDIBLY important to have very good balance, have a strong ankle and/or adequate ankle support. Getting all your weight on that ski and pushing through, rather than shuffling, opens up the XC aspect of your skis. At times, the ski might want to wobble or turn. Just like controlling your edges downhill, you need to learn to control them on flats. Once you get the hang of how any one skis wants to turn in the snow you are in, when you stride forward with your weight applied, you should be able to use it to your advantage.

[lowangle al]

Lilcliffy you made a lot of good points that I agree with. Some of us are more into the tour and others the turns. I choose whatever gear I think will be most fun for the day. As far as the touring efficiency of light gear you won't beat regular xc stuff. I remember the first time I tried touring with leather telemark boots and I thought I couldn't do it, the boots were too stiff. But I adapted and rarely go back to regular xc gear even though I have a world class free groomed xc trails 2 miles from my house. Where do you draw the line?

Obviously, there seems to be a lot of envy about the XCD category... Why is that? Where does that anger and jealousy comes from

Johnny, I didn't know there is any anger and jealousy, only differences of opinion. I ski leather lace up boots and three pin bindings with skinny ski you actually have to put wax on, so I think I can call myself an xcd skier. To me I ski the same places on different weight gear and it's all the same sport, xcd skiing.

[MikeK]

I ski leather lace up boots and three pin bindings with skinny ski you actually have to put wax on, so I think I can call myself an xcd skier. To me I ski the same places on different weight gear and it's all the same sport, xcd skiing.

I don't follow this logic. People ski Telemark and Alpine on the same trails at the resort. Are they the same sport? People ski Meidjos and Dynafits on the same terrain in the BC. Is it the same? People skate and k+g on the same terrain at Nordic centers. Are they the same?

Skiing particular terrain is independent of the gear and the styles used. It is in every other form of skiing. Why not for XCD and Telemark in terms of Nordic BC skiing?