Alternatives before buying Alaskas

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
phoenix
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:44 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by phoenix » Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:04 am

"I agree about the high ankle, I don’t need it, but it doesn’t have any negative effect on my striding."

"Does it annoy you at all? I'm a comfort freak."

I'm super picky about boot fit too; I don't find any discomfort or interference with my Alaska 75's. When new, I felt a little pressure at the instep, probably related to a seam in the tongue, but a short break-in period smoothed any slight concerns. I was also able to tweak the lacing much better after break in; the lacing system is excellent and allows you to fine tune.

User avatar
John Dee
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:15 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by John Dee » Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:07 am

Woodserson wrote:
Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:25 am
John Dee wrote:
Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:53 am
I bought the Transnordic 59 Easyskin from France and am kind of wishing I got 200 instead of 195. I'm 5' 11" and my 152 lbs says 195-205 so 200 is the middle ground for me. I thought I'd want to have some maneuverability but I really want to maximize the weird niche that this ski fills, speed on backcountry trails. Or I may just sell and forget about this ski altogether because of metal edges on everday xc skis and dogs.
Ok, so you got the WAX version of this ski. In this category/class ski I usually am skiing 205cm-- I am 6'2" and usually 160lbs. However, I am a very good experienced skier and prefer faster longer skis and can adapt my kick to work when I am right at the weight limit for a ski.

The 200 might be better with more moderate skills but then less maneuverability. But add in lots of hills and downhills and maybe someone with your experience would prefer the 195's. What's really nice about the WAX version however, is that you won't be limited by the drag of the scales. You are going to be able to set how much drag/glide you want on the ski, and if the ski is a little shorter than you would like, you'll be able to shorten the wax pocket and keep some good glide and speed. Don't worry about it until it snows, you ski a lot on it, and then you decide. Until then you are good to go. If you ever go and get a CROWN Fischer ski, go 200 at least.
These transnordic 66's are the crown in 195cm. I have some old ruined skis in 193 and 200 that I have been standing on and meditating on about length. The 200 seems pretty long for the woods or doing a lot of turns. But with the E89's I'm not sure that I'd be going off trail anyways, and they don't turn fast.

I also read that these narrow skis can some float from length?

The thing is, I might just leave them in the wrapper if I plan on selling them. They're now out of stock at that store, maybe everywhere, so I could probably sell them.



User avatar
John Dee
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:15 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by John Dee » Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:44 am

John_XCD wrote:
Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:23 am
The guard has a softer flex and I prefer it to the Alaska for that reason (actually for striding and skiing downhill). After a bit of break in-- I would not say the Alaska is at all too stiff or uncomfortable in size 45.
That's what I've been reading that makes me want to buy them. But this morning I was thinking about how important fit is. I haven't read anyone that says, wow these Alfas fit my feet like a custom boot. I don't think I'm a low volume foot. I always measure at a 9-9.5 on those things at the shoe store, but I wear 10s because of width.

It comes down to whether the difference warrants taking the risk of ordering them. I will try the Alaskas on Tuesday, but I still probably won't be able to appreciate the difference between them.



User avatar
phoenix
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:44 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by phoenix » Tue Oct 05, 2021 7:44 pm

The Alaskas seem to have plenty of width in the forefoot; if I recall some folks here have wider feet and find them quite comfortable. I have a low volume foot (narrow), and they're almost too roomy for me (but not quite). Again, the lacing system and fit are well designed, and work with a wide range of feet.

About that "shop thingee" for measurement: that's a Brannock Device, and does provide an accurate measurement when used correctly. A key thing along with length is that they measure your "arch length"... it's not uncommon for folks to, say, measure a size 9, but that arch length be a half or full size larger or smaller than the regular length.
This should be taken into consideration when fitting, and is part of why some people often go to a larger size to be comfortable. Other tweaks like orthotics or arch supports sometimes eliminate that need.
Bigger is not always better in this fit scenario.



User avatar
John Dee
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:15 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by John Dee » Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:13 pm

I went to the OGX today. I tried on the Alaskas and ran up and down the isle. I was short on time, though, and I didn't get to really familiarize with them. Flexing them by hand I can feel the soles definitely flex more than a hiking boot. But neither is it like XC or my OTX5 boots.

I don't think I care about ultimate kick and glide efficiency because i won't be on flats with the boot. Its really just about comfort -maybe that is the same as efficiency- for long and gradual terrain. I know that the Alfa Guard was designed specifically for pretty flat touring in Norway, and people say it has similar control, so it seems like best comfort and function. But Alaska is probably the best fit.



User avatar
John Dee
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:15 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by John Dee » Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:14 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:25 am
John Dee wrote:
Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:53 am
I bought the Transnordic 59 Easyskin from France and am kind of wishing I got 200 instead of 195. I'm 5' 11" and my 152 lbs says 195-205 so 200 is the middle ground for me. I thought I'd want to have some maneuverability but I really want to maximize the weird niche that this ski fills, speed on backcountry trails. Or I may just sell and forget about this ski altogether because of metal edges on everday xc skis and dogs.
Ok, so you got the WAX version of this ski. In this category/class ski I usually am skiing 205cm-- I am 6'2" and usually 160lbs. However, I am a very good experienced skier and prefer faster longer skis and can adapt my kick to work when I am right at the weight limit for a ski.

The 200 might be better with more moderate skills but then less maneuverability. But add in lots of hills and downhills and maybe someone with your experience would prefer the 195's. What's really nice about the WAX version however, is that you won't be limited by the drag of the scales. You are going to be able to set how much drag/glide you want on the ski, and if the ski is a little shorter than you would like, you'll be able to shorten the wax pocket and keep some good glide and speed. Don't worry about it until it snows, you ski a lot on it, and then you decide. Until then you are good to go. If you ever go and get a CROWN Fischer ski, go 200 at least.
I bought the Transnordic 59 in 200 also. I didn't take your advice to not worry and ski the 195's. Should I start on the 195's or sell them? Any reason to have both?

I'm actually 155 lbs, not 152. So maybe I'm 73.5kg on skis.



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile V6, Altai KOMs, XCD: Asnes FT62, XC: Nansen, E99, Bonna 1800
Favorite boots: T2Eco, T4, Rossignol BCX10
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch. Flailmeister. E99 Nerd

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by Woodserson » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:39 pm

John Dee wrote:
Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:14 pm


I bought the Transnordic 59 in 200 also. I didn't take your advice to not worry and ski the 195's. Should I start on the 195's or sell them? Any reason to have both?

I'm actually 155 lbs, not 152. So maybe I'm 73.5kg on skis.
I'm just confused about what you have or don't have and what's in Crown or what's in Wax. So you are worrying over the 195 TN59 Wax ski? Is that it? I have not seen a E89/TN59 in a long time. I recall it was quite deeply cambered, more so than the E99/TN66 so if that's the case and you're in hilly terrain I think you are good to go and you can always sell later and try something else. But that's me trying to help you in an era of tight equipment inventories.

But you should always have more skis, what kind of question is that.



User avatar
John Dee
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:15 pm

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by John Dee » Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:34 am

Woodserson wrote:
Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:39 pm
John Dee wrote:
Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:14 pm


I bought the Transnordic 59 in 200 also. I didn't take your advice to not worry and ski the 195's. Should I start on the 195's or sell them? Any reason to have both?

I'm actually 155 lbs, not 152. So maybe I'm 73.5kg on skis.
I'm just confused about what you have or don't have and what's in Crown or what's in Wax. So you are worrying over the 195 TN59 Wax ski? Is that it? I have not seen a E89/TN59 in a long time. I recall it was quite deeply cambered, more so than the E99/TN66 so if that's the case and you're in hilly terrain I think you are good to go and you can always sell later and try something else. But that's me trying to help you in an era of tight equipment inventories.

But you should always have more skis, what kind of question is that.
Since posting the question, I bought the TN59 in 200. So now I have both 195 and 200's. So its not a matter of availability, but usefulness. I would sell it probably to preorder a Ingstad or Nansen.

I'm not even entirely sure what I'll be doing. There's a nice flat unplowed road that I ski, but I will also l be making a my own trails in hillier places.



User avatar
riel
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: BC XC
Favorite Skis: Alpina Discovery 80 / Asnes Ingstad, Sondre / Fischer S-Bound 112
Favorite boots: Fischer BCX675
Website: https://surriel.com/
Contact:

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by riel » Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:39 pm

John Dee wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:34 am
Since posting the question, I bought the TN59 in 200. So now I have both 195 and 200's. So its not a matter of availability, but usefulness. I would sell it probably to preorder a Ingstad or Nansen.

I'm not even entirely sure what I'll be doing. There's a nice flat unplowed road that I ski, but I will also l be making a my own trails in hillier places.
I suspect the Ingstad has a flex most similar to the TN59. A stiff second camber in the middle, providing lots of flotation in deep, fresh snow.

The Nansen is the most different to the TN59, with a round supportive flex, making it easier to make turns in the backcountry even on more consolidated snow.

I suspect adding the most different ski to your quiver might expand your capabilities the most, but the kind of snow you get also is a big factor in what will be the most fun to have!



User avatar
The GCW
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:39 am
Location: Summit County Colorado
Ski style: Alpine, Alpine B.C. Nordic B.C.

Re: Alternatives before buying Alaskas

Post by The GCW » Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:28 pm

One alternative is the Madshus Glittertind boots. Hopefully someone with experience telemark turning in them will reply how well that works. But for kick and glide, I like them. My old boots were mush and pretty much worthless. Glittertind had good support.

I had 2 different pair delaminate (see link below) and the 2nd pair's drawstring for built in gator cuff came apart on the 1st tug. I was refunded and was told Madshus believed they were experiencing a batch that had bad glue and the problem will be fixed.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... GCW#p38695

I plan to get another pair of them for this season. It's mountains for Me and kick and glide even while ascending is important so I don't want a boot that compromises K&G. I was able to get out a few times after the refund & used My old mushy boots and they were unsafe with no support.

It snowed on the high peaks last night. Snowing here right now at 9,000'. It won't be long.



Post Reply