A new take on an old time favorite...

[Johnny]

Nah, it tells something terribly sad about the development of XCD...

We previously discussed the matter here... It's just a standard Voile 3pc bundled with risers and climbing wires. Selling for more than what you would pay buying the items separately. It doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it was outrageously expensive when it was 85$ last year, they now sell it for almost twice the price. Really the most expensive binding on the market.

And don't forget it won't even fit any real XC boots anymore. As the Voile design guy told me in an email: "These were updated to accommodate only the newer style plastic telemark boots duck bills." In other words, they are no longer a real XCD binding.

It sure was an old time favorite, but it's not anymore. Sadly, it's the end of Voile 3pc binding...

[connyro]

Nah, it tells something terribly sad about the development of XCD...

We previously discussed the matter here... It's just a standard Voile 3pc bundled with risers and climbing wires. Selling for more than what you would pay buying the items separately. It doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it was outrageously expensive when it was 85$ last year, they now sell it for almost twice the price. Really the most expensive binding on the market.

And don't forget it won't even fit any real XC boots anymore. As the Voile design guy told me in an email: "These were updated to accommodate only the newer style plastic telemark boots duck bills." In other words, they are no longer a real XCD binding.

It sure was an old time favorite, but it's not anymore. Sadly, it's the end of Voile 3pc binding...

Johnny, I think your definition of XCD needs a little tweaking. Only leather boots qualify? What about leather boots with plastic inserts like the Asolo Extreme? What about leather boots with plastic inserts and buckles? What about light plastic boots and 3-pins only? You can't XCD with T4s or Excursions? That sounds like elitist hogwash. I ski leathers too at times, but to be honest, only for the sake of skiing leathers (nostalgia) and not for comfort, warmth, or performance. If I am heading out for a casual ski, I'll grab the leathers sometimes because they feel different. Most of the time I head out to climb for some turns in the woods, it's my nice warm, comfortable, dry, lighter than some leathers, Excursions that I grab. I like them both, but light plastic is more satisfying and comfortable. I'm just not willing to wear frozen uncomfortable leathers for the sake of complying with a certain dress code.

And don't forget it won't even fit any real XC boots anymore. As the Voile design guy told me in an email: "These were updated to accommodate only the newer style plastic telemark boots duck bills." In other words, they are no longer a real XCD binding.

So they are no longer XCD bindings because they don't fit XC boots? That seems silly and arbitrary. Use XC bindings for XC boots.

[MikeK]

Oh dear connyro... you have not heard of the ways of the Knights Templar of XCD... these laws are not easily overturned. I'm not even sure who makes them. But one must abide, or suffer the consequences...

[connyro]

Oh dear connyro... you have not heard of the ways of the Knights Templar of XCD... these laws are not easily overturned. I'm not even sure who makes them. But one must abide, or suffer the consequences...

Hahaha.I figured this place woefully lacks in strife and argument, so I thought I'd poke another hornet's nest. It worked out so well the lest time I did that around here (hi Ron).

It seems less like the 'laws of XCD' and more like a dress code of XCD. Leathers are nice and all but if you are out skiing often on a wide variety of terrain and conditions over the course of a season, leathers are really only optimal a few times a year compared to lite plastics.

[MikeK]

I don't know Johnny's mind - in fact I often can't quite figure out if he is messing with me or serious (but I actually like that)... but you know he does ski plastic and the like.

His point of contention has always been that if you lock your ankle in a block of plastic it doesn't have anything to do with XC anymore, so don't call it XCD. It just becomes 'telemark'.

Being a converted alpine skier, I completely agree. There is nothing more restricting than walking in a plastic boot which restricts your tibia both fore and aft and laterally.

The 109 rule then relates the width of ski that becomes controllable with said boot that cannot support the tibia.

All this becomes a lot of semantics on what XCD and telemark are. I don't know? The era certainly is changing and my wife certainly loves skiing cross country in plastic telemark boots. So I get the push. There might have been a time when the knights were complaining that skis with side cut and single cambers weren't xc, but I don't know?

Some extremists might say you're not skiing xcd unless you are on a stiff double cambered skate ski. Others might say anything with fishscales qualifies as xcd. Like everything I try to be somewhere in the middle - extremes tend to be, well extreme... find the balance that works for what you do and call it whatever you like. The talk is just fooling around for me...

The sad part is if these companies fail to make stuff that people still want to use, or stuff that isn't cross compatible. But like any company, no matter what they say, they are out to make money... if the market doesn't exist, don't expect the company (or product) to survive.

[connyro]

I hear you MikeK. Have you XCD'd with light plastic boots before? In my experience, my ankle is not locked in a block of plastic. T4s and Excursions (2-buckle) are a soft plastic that most certainly flex when forced. XC skate boots 'lock' your ankle laterally too but they are still considered XC boots...

Also, skiing on skis wider than 109 is doable and even enjoyable in heavy leathers/lite plastics. Once you center your balance, and sort out the details, the need to full-on fore-aft support is less necessary. YMMV.

Where do skis like the Karhu Metas/Karvers, Altai Hoks, or even the Marquette Backcountry skis fall in the ranking of what's XCD or not? They are all fat and short but call for using light boots and 3 pin bindings for best results...

I propose it's the skier, the terrain, and the skier's intentions that dictate if it's XCD or not. Not if their boots are made from dead animals or dead plants (plastic) or how wide their skis are.

[MikeK]

No I've never used the excursion or T4 - but I think I'd like the control on rough snow.

My wife loves hers - she'd ski in tracks with them if I let her... speed is the least of her worries. But she can ski hills and rough snow with confidence. She says they are warm and they don't bother her feet. She struggles even to kick and glide with a wider ski like her Epochs with soft boots like the Alaska so she really appreciates the ankle support. I'm hoping the Svartisen gives her an in between option of ankle support plus better flex for touring...

The Svartisen definitely restricts the ankle motion to some degree. Kicking it's not bad, but you'd be hard pressed to roll it to the side (like a skate boot). It certainly is easier to ski in a boot like that than the Alaska, which has very little ankle support at all. I actually don't mind skiing my wider skis with the Alaska if the snow is deep - the snow gives me the support that the boots lack. It still takes a lot of balance compared to alpine skiing though.

So if we went to extremes you'd have a floppy soled, low top XC boot (I used to ski these as a kid and they aren't much good except for making your foot wet) and a racing alpine boot (least restrictive to most). XCD gear is somewhere in the middle - and that is probably about all anyone will agree on

[Johnny]

Oh I think I get it Connyro... You're only trying to get me banned out of here...!!

Seriously, the XCD Knights are very strict. It has been discussed in detail in other threads in the last 50 years, but why exactly one would call 2-buckle plastic T4s and Excs "Cross-Country" instead of "Telemark"? In which way exactly are they XC boots? They simply are small all-plastic alpine boots with flexing bellows... (Also called Telemark gear...)

You don't like Telemark? I like telemark a lot!

Use XC bindings for XC boots.

I would love to... But someone already bought those Magnums!!!

[connyro]

Oh I think I get it Connyro... You're only trying to get me banned out of here...!!

LOL. If we can't agree, someone must go!

Seriously, the XCD Knights are very strict. It has been discussed in detail in other threads in the last 50 years, but why exactly one would call 2-buckle plastic T4s and Excs "Cross-Country" instead of "Telemark"? In which way exactly are they XC boots? They simply are small all-plastic alpine boots with flexing bellows... (Also called Telemark gear...)

No, I don't think they are XC boots but I also don't think XC boots are really appropriate for the D part of XCD.

You don't like Telemark? I like telemark a lot!

I like telemark too. I guess my point may be that, ignoring the extreme outliers of lite XC touring and heavy resort/groomer tele, XCD=telemark! Yep, I said it even though I'm fully aware it's blasphemous! Now who's gunna get banned? BTW: congrats for being a new father!

[MikeK]

If history is any indication, I'll be the next one to get banned