Also let's not kid ourselves by looking only at waist like the big boy skiers do.
Really, like lilcliffy alluded to, it's all a function of camber, length, sidecut profile, stiffness, and overall weight in addition to waist width.
I'm pretty sure if you took a narrow waisted, heavy old school tele ski and put NNN BC on it you'd hate it. Also putting a magnum on a ski like the E89 at 210 cm isn't going to make it a turning machine.
Given the current, small range of xcd skis, we could narrow it down by waist width though with the stipulation that most narrow skis will be double cambered and tougher to turn no matter whether with pins or NNN.
Alaskas at MEC
-
lilcliffy
- Posts: 4202
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
- Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
- Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
- Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
- Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
- Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Very true Mike...the complete complex of a skis profile and flex pattern influence its inherent "turn-ability"- depending on snow conditions. Even the parabolic sidecut trend is really only truly effective when carving on dense/hard snow. True powder skis have only minimal sidecut. In awesomely deep powder, flotation is everything, and a rockered "camber" (i.e. reverse-camber) has more of an effect on turn-ability than sidecut.
My primary point, in my last post, was to respond to the question of width, with a soft boot like the Alaska. There is NO question that wide skis are more stable on steep slopes (and they also out-climb narrow skis). BUT- IME, you need more and more powerful boots-bindings, in order to hold wider and wider skis on edge- especially in challenging snow/terrain. IME- even when I am in my best skiing shape (strength and balance) there's a limit to the ski-width that I can hold on edge- without moving to a more powerful boot-binding. And no matter how much I ski- I believe there will always be a limit to this. Does that limit depend on skier skill? Sure it does- some exceptional skiers can push the boundaries of everything. But, IMO there is no escaping physics- you must have enough leverage to hold a ski on edge. How much leverage you need depends on ski width, snow conditions and terrain. The telemark allows a skier to use ball-of-foot strength to leverage a ski and steer it. But, there has to be a limit to how much BOF control can be used to leverage a ski- again that limit is dependent on a skier's skill- but for everyone there is a limit. Beyond that limit you need more boot-binding power. And with that increase in boot-binding power, comes the trade-off of losing flexibility and range of motion.
I can only speculate what the actual inherent turning radius of a xcountry ski like the E89 would be...NOT short radius!
A trad xcountry ski, like the E89, is obviously narrow, and has very little sidecut. One can "create" a combined sidecut with both skis, using the telemark. But, you still have to get into a telemark position in order to create that combined-ski-sidecut. Telemark turn initiation is either a function of steering, or striding. I challenge the notion that anyone can initiate a telemark, on a stiff, straight, cambered ski, without striding into it- unless you are on an ideal, smooth, firm and/or groomed surface, and can stem/skid your way into the turn.
The only way to make short radius turns with ski like the E89 is to either stride your way through them- or stem your way through them (and you would need pretty ideal snow conditions to stem with the E89). (There are plenty of videos of turning trad xcountry skis in ideal conditions)
And your bang on about the issue of camber as well. IME/IMO, skiers that are using double-cambered skis, to make consistent, connected, and controlled downhill turns, cannot be using traditional xcountry ski lengths- for their personal weight. The double-camber of a trad xcountry ski should only flatten out when the skier puts all of her/his weight on ONE ski. IME, double-cambered skis can only be reasonably controlled, downhill, when I can flatten the camber of both skis- equally weighted. This requires the ski to be much shorter than a xcountry length. And it also defeats the purpose of why I would want to be on xcountry ski in the first place- to K&G xcountry. Downhill skiing on double-cambered skis, in a trad xcountry length, is a wild ride!
I MUCH prefer xcD skiing on single-cambered skis. To be honest, I hate fighting with long double-cambered skis on slopes- just as much as I hate xcountry skiing on short skis. If I am on a long xcountry tour in steep country; the answer for me is a long, single-cambered ski- long enough for reasonable K&G performance, and decent downhill performance. On the other hand; if I am XCd skiing on gentle to moderate terrain, I will choose a very long, more cambered ski, for more efficient K&G- and I will select my downhill runs very carefully!
My primary point, in my last post, was to respond to the question of width, with a soft boot like the Alaska. There is NO question that wide skis are more stable on steep slopes (and they also out-climb narrow skis). BUT- IME, you need more and more powerful boots-bindings, in order to hold wider and wider skis on edge- especially in challenging snow/terrain. IME- even when I am in my best skiing shape (strength and balance) there's a limit to the ski-width that I can hold on edge- without moving to a more powerful boot-binding. And no matter how much I ski- I believe there will always be a limit to this. Does that limit depend on skier skill? Sure it does- some exceptional skiers can push the boundaries of everything. But, IMO there is no escaping physics- you must have enough leverage to hold a ski on edge. How much leverage you need depends on ski width, snow conditions and terrain. The telemark allows a skier to use ball-of-foot strength to leverage a ski and steer it. But, there has to be a limit to how much BOF control can be used to leverage a ski- again that limit is dependent on a skier's skill- but for everyone there is a limit. Beyond that limit you need more boot-binding power. And with that increase in boot-binding power, comes the trade-off of losing flexibility and range of motion.
I can only speculate what the actual inherent turning radius of a xcountry ski like the E89 would be...NOT short radius!
A trad xcountry ski, like the E89, is obviously narrow, and has very little sidecut. One can "create" a combined sidecut with both skis, using the telemark. But, you still have to get into a telemark position in order to create that combined-ski-sidecut. Telemark turn initiation is either a function of steering, or striding. I challenge the notion that anyone can initiate a telemark, on a stiff, straight, cambered ski, without striding into it- unless you are on an ideal, smooth, firm and/or groomed surface, and can stem/skid your way into the turn.
The only way to make short radius turns with ski like the E89 is to either stride your way through them- or stem your way through them (and you would need pretty ideal snow conditions to stem with the E89). (There are plenty of videos of turning trad xcountry skis in ideal conditions)
And your bang on about the issue of camber as well. IME/IMO, skiers that are using double-cambered skis, to make consistent, connected, and controlled downhill turns, cannot be using traditional xcountry ski lengths- for their personal weight. The double-camber of a trad xcountry ski should only flatten out when the skier puts all of her/his weight on ONE ski. IME, double-cambered skis can only be reasonably controlled, downhill, when I can flatten the camber of both skis- equally weighted. This requires the ski to be much shorter than a xcountry length. And it also defeats the purpose of why I would want to be on xcountry ski in the first place- to K&G xcountry. Downhill skiing on double-cambered skis, in a trad xcountry length, is a wild ride!
I MUCH prefer xcD skiing on single-cambered skis. To be honest, I hate fighting with long double-cambered skis on slopes- just as much as I hate xcountry skiing on short skis. If I am on a long xcountry tour in steep country; the answer for me is a long, single-cambered ski- long enough for reasonable K&G performance, and decent downhill performance. On the other hand; if I am XCd skiing on gentle to moderate terrain, I will choose a very long, more cambered ski, for more efficient K&G- and I will select my downhill runs very carefully!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Alright, you guys should do marketing for Alpina! Now I'm convinced to pick up a pair of Alaska NNN-BC boots. Great discussion on sizing. They are pricy boots but based on what I've read here and other places, I think they will be just the ticket I need to replace my woefully piss-poor and tore up Rossi X2's. I usually wear US 10 but have a low volume but wide foot with a narrow heel, so I'm thinking about getting the 43's...
-
lilcliffy
- Posts: 4202
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
- Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
- Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
- Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
- Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
- Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Connyro- I'm a size 9US, and am wearing the 43EU Alaska- I am very happy with it. But, I do have to gather up a lot of material when I tighten them up...If I were to buy a new pair I am considering buying a 42 for comparison.
It sounds like your foot shape is very similar to mine- just slightly bigger overall (10US). The 43 might fit you better- just like I am suspicious that the 42 might fit me better- but, it may just be that the Alpina is high-volume and you will need a 44.
BTW- I replaced the stock insole with a high-profile insole (superfeet). This was a huge improvement for me in fitting this boot (with my low-volume feet!).
The stock insole sucks anyway...I hope they have improved it with the latest model.
It sounds like your foot shape is very similar to mine- just slightly bigger overall (10US). The 43 might fit you better- just like I am suspicious that the 42 might fit me better- but, it may just be that the Alpina is high-volume and you will need a 44.
BTW- I replaced the stock insole with a high-profile insole (superfeet). This was a huge improvement for me in fitting this boot (with my low-volume feet!).
The stock insole sucks anyway...I hope they have improved it with the latest model.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Good advice LC! I'm thinking, based on your and others advice, that the 43 should be a good size. Good info on insole too. I have a few pairs that I plan to try to fit, including some of those fancy-pants superfeet. Stock insoles included in most boots (ski or otherwise) usually suck big-time.
Re: Alaskas at MEC
OK I ordered 44s today. Now we wait...
-
lilcliffy
- Posts: 4202
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
- Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
- Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
- Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
- Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
- Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Connyro-
Please let us know how you make out with the 43.
If they end up fitting you- I will probably try the 42.
Please let us know how you make out with the 43.
If they end up fitting you- I will probably try the 42.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Ok I received my Alpina Alaskas and they look the same as previous ones no suprizes. First off the build quality looks outstanding and very durable fit and finish near perfect. I ordered the 44s as I have a 10-10 1/2 normal foot. The box comes marked 44 and 9 1/2 which after checking several size charts is 9 1/2 UK or 10-10 1/2. So right from the first time you stick your foot in them it's heaven, I mean the footbeds are actually griping your heel and ball of foot. The whole "rand" or wrap around rubber deal really works and adds to the torsional stiffness of the boot so its not relying on a huge cuff to drive an edge. The toebox is very roomy with no pinch from above. We got a fresh 6" dump here yesteday so I grabbed my Light Terains and my Old E99s and headed for a local soccer pitch with a hill on it. Geared up and shuffled out love the K&G feel and warm oh so warm. Pushed off the top and snapped off some Teles easily with a bit of attention paid to BOF weighting. I'm pretty sure if I mounted my BC 125s with Volie 3pins I could turn them with these boots in soft snow. So overall these are a joy to stick on your feet and can't wait to bag some miles up on them. I might even be swayed to ski my lighter gear all the time.
-
MikeK
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Do it!Dirtbag wrote: might even be swayed to ski my lighter gear all the time.
Nothing like the freedom and comfort of XC skis
Re: Alaskas at MEC
Got the Alaskas NNN-BCs today (finally) and first impressions: the are RED! As in very red, like blood red.lilcliffy wrote:Connyro-
Please let us know how you make out with the 43.
If they end up fitting you- I will probably try the 42.
The size 43's are a great fit for my feet. The width and length are perfect for my usually size 10(28) feet. Very well constructed and pretty soft, comfortable, and light considering...I can't wait to ski them but right now it's POURING rain and forecasted to be in the 30s and 40s (F) this week into next...stupid niño.