Xplore binding for in track skiing? | Advice for big boy ski selection

[cludwig]

I am just getting in started in XC skiing coming from a downhill background. I rented some Rossi classic skis and NNN boots last year and had a fun lesson at Sundance resort, but I was not impressed with NNN gear. I'm a big boy at about 6 foot / 183cm and 275lb/125kg.

The NNN gear isn't really made for the torque I can apply to it. Way too much plastic in there.

I want to eventually build the following quiver:
1: In track ski for use at the Ogden (Utah) Nordic Center
2: Deep powder exploration ski - I'll be starting with a 210cm USGI, but I also have a 200cm set. When the shipping is more than the ski, get 2.
3: XCD turn oriented touring capable ski - Maybe an Ingstad, maybe a Faalketind, Maybe A Fischer 88 or 98. Not looking for serious touring in the steeps, just low angle goofing around.

I have a ski March boot in 75mm and a 75mm binding plus a Alaska XP and binding on order.

Here are the questions:
1: Can I dispense with the NNN kit for an in track ski and mount an XP. Tom M had a video suggesting that binding width isn't a concern, but I am more worried about mounting holes. Can I put one on a 48mm wide waist ski without concern for the skis? Based on the drill template, the holes appear to be ~30mm wide center to center.
2: Any track ski and XCD purchasing advice that is tailored to a big guy? I expect to be in the longest of any model ski for stability and weight carrying, but are some skis more capable of handing my weight that others? If so, what is recommended for a track ski and a XCD ski? My plan is to mount XP binding on the USGI, get some track skis this year, and get XCD skis for next year, all goes well this year.

Note: I'd love a Combat NATO and I'd guess they would have a good chance of handling my weight as I am close to a big soldier with a full combat load out on weight, but at the prices they go for, I just can't justify that price over the Ingstad or others.

Thanks in advance,
-Chris.

[beeeweee]

The Asnes MR48 can accept both NNN and NNN-BC bindings. It’ll likely fit Xplore bindings too. It’ll fit in tracks but I wouldn’t call it a track ski.

A good race level track ski will still have way better glide than a fast track-compatible touring ski. It’s like comparing a race car and a high-end SUV. They both can go fast and both fit on the road, but one will be more efficient at the same speed and will get you up to speed much quicker than the other.

The other part of the equation are the boots. NNN boots are much lighter so your overall setup will be a lot lighter.

[Askel]

Fellow Big Boy here. About the exact same size even- ~270lb and 6'.

I don't have much specific advice to add as I don't have experience with most of the equipment you ask about, but I just wanted to interject that I've never had problems with NNN. Well, once I did. High speed skate wipe out in icy conditions, managed to bend a boot toe bar. NNN without metal edges just won't let you put too much torque into it to break anything by yourself.

I have a set of inbound crowns mounted NNN that'll ski tracks mostly OK and even let me get some turns in if conditions are right.

I've yet to see the Xplore stuff in person, but 75mm has been serving me fine for years. Usually ski with Rossi X11 boots.

[cludwig]

A good race level track ski will still have way better glide than a fast track-compatible touring ski. It’s like comparing a race car and a high-end SUV.

I'm not looking to race, just have a solid performing recreational track ski that works in all conditions. I just want enough efficiency for it to not be a slog. Would an MR48 take my weight?

[lilcliffy]

Hello Chris,
I do not have any experience with Xplore in a groomed track-
As it is only just wider than the ski boot- I don't see why it wouldn't "work" in a track-
it will certainly rub on the sides of the track...Don't know what that will be like...

My Atomic Classic trak skis are very thick underfoot- my boot actually rides above the track and does not rub on the sides of the track.

If you are heavy- you want enough support and stabilty (same as everyone really, just relative to weight/mass and the amount of force applied to the ski)

Choosing a track ski? Go to a shop and get one sized for you.

"XCD" ski? This can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people...
Terrain?
Typical snow conditions?
Traditional Nordic touring?
Or- up-down downhill-oriented touring?

Gareth

[cludwig]

"XCD" ski? This can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people...
Terrain?
Typical snow conditions?
Traditional Nordic touring?
Or- up-down downhill-oriented touring?

Gareth, thanks for the reply!

Terrain is the Utah Wasatch mountains. Our groomed Nordic trails are in parks and closed roads between 5000-6000 ft in the valleys between mountain ranges. Mountains here have good routes for touring for turns, but I'm not interested in that much vertical, nor the avalanche risk. Off trail, the powder is light and bottomless. South and west facing slopes get enough sun to consolidate between storms, but North and East slopes stay light and fluffy and avalanche prone at the right angles. Travel on snowshoes is a slog. The snow is too deep for post holing, it is either skis with serious flotation or big snowshoes or you stick to packed trails. The kind of snow where you have to work hard to get back on your skis after a crash.

Travel is easier in the bottom of valleys, on closed roads, and on the wind blown open fields as the snow depth is more manageable.

The sort of XCD I am thinking of is about what you see in Tom M's videos. Shortish (until I get my self in shape) approach to areas with enough slope to ski down, but not enough to slide. I'll avoid anything steep enough to need AT gear as the drive towards XP gear or 3pin is to ditch the alpine boots. Yeah, I can rip down steep slopes on my Fischer Ranger 102 FRs going way fast with bomb-proof stability, but the fact that I can hardly walk and can't travel up hill drives me nuts. I'd rather explore low angle terrain and forests than just ski down hills. AT doesn't impress me either dues to the transitions between up and down. Too many sacrifices for downhill performance. I want to focus more on the Nordic travel and some occasional fun going down a mild hill so I do want some ability to turn. I guess a somewhat k&g oriented Fjellski.

[John_XCD]

I do a lot of XC and XCD skiing in SLC area. Lots of excellent terrain and conditions here in northern UT.

Agree with getting a track specific ski for in-track skiing. You may get a better fit going through one of the larger retailers of xc skis (boulder nordic sport, gearwest). Fitting a track ski to your weight will be very important. There are plenty of big powerful skiers on the worldcup using NNN bindings. There should not really be torque on the binding, it is more learning the technique to transfer that energy into the ski.

For what you describe as deep snow exploration-- the USGI 210 is probably a good start. I have the breidablikk which is combat NATO without edges (for safely skiing with dogs) at 200cm for my 180lbs. Really a great ski for trail breaking and skiing soft UT powder. Handles OK on packed snow but the real joy is in soft snow. I love turning this ski but takes some practice and turns are wider radius. NATO/breidablikk in 210cm would probably suit you well. Would avoid going anything shorter than 210 at your size. If you envision more time on snowmobile routes/multi use trails etc, the gamme and fischer transnordic 66 (rebrand of the old E99) are good options (again at max length 210cm) which would have better glide on a more consolidated snowpack (but less float in deeper powder).

I also do a lot of touring for turns on XCD gear in the lower angle zones where people also ski AT. I use the sbound 98 at the max length of 189 and have a voile objective at 178 both mounted NNNBC use primarily alfa guard. Much fun to be had in moderate terrain (but also some technique to learn). I worry both of these skis that I have at max length would not support your weight well in the light powder you want to ski. I suggest the asnes falketind (new "xplore" branded model) at the max length of 196. Similar profile to S-98 with more length and sounds like a bit sturdier flex. This length doesn't show on the asnes website anymore, so maybe hurry on a pair!

[lilcliffy]

I guess a somewhat k&g oriented Fjellski.

Going to use grip-kick wax or "waxless" scales?

[lilcliffy]

I suggest the asnes falketind (new "xplore" branded model) at the max length of 196. Similar profile to S-98 with more length and sounds like a bit sturdier flex. This length doesn't show on the asnes website anymore, so maybe hurry on a pair!

I am very curious to hear whether the FTX even at 196 would offer enough support and stability in deep soft snow for a skier that is well over 200lbs...

I am still thinking that a 195 Ingstad BC is going to be more stable in deep snow than a 196 FTX- due to the tip and tail rocker of the FTX...

And- if so- a 205 Ingstad BC even more...

And- the 210 Combat Nato even more...

Also depends on whether you want to ski through that deep soft snow- or wish to try and stay on top of it...

[cludwig]

I don't mind waxing with the option of a short kicker skin for when I need it. Not adverse to scales though either.

For my size, I like ~2000cm^2 of surface area to go through bottomless powder on alpine gear. That is what my powder oriented downhill skis are. Only the Altai Koms and wider Voile's would provide that much flotation. The longest Kom is near 1900cm^2.

My snowshoes have a surface area of 1420cm2, and they aren't so fun in deep powder. The tips dive too much as the center of flotation is a bit too far aft on them.

So, my goal isn't to handle our deep stuff on a descent on this type of gear. For that, I'd need a Kom or similar width Voile with a powerful boot and binding to turn that wdth ski.

I'll be sticking to more consolidated bases with this lighter gear, touring on groomed trails or roads with fresh powder over a packed base, some turns on south or west facing slopes where the powder gets warmed enough to settle to a firm base, etc. We also have the option to travel up hill at resorts before they open for alpine skiers. They run groomers through about once a storm to keep packing in the base so you can find powder over a consolidated base there. Enough for a bit of fun.

I still have lift tickets for resort sking, so this is all to get out and explore parks and trees. I'll get my downhill fix in the resort, but some accasional turns would be nice.