Fischer Transnordic BOOT

[Woodserson]

fischer-bcx-transnordic-boots.jpg

fischer-bcx-grand-tour-boots.jpg



From pages 34 & 35 in the Fischer 21/22 catalog:
https://issuu.com/fischersportsgmbh/doc ... FiNTI3OTkw

Cool boots! Curious how stiff the boot flex is on the BCX Transnordic.

I just handled these bad boys. They are STIFF. The soles are stiff, the BC maybe slightly stiffer than the 75, but both stiffer than the Alaskas-- not by much but still. I only had my boots to compare too, which are broken in a bit, as no Alaskas in the shop. The uppers are definitely stiffer as well. Big stiff boot.

[12gaugesage]

I have been curious about those. Is that at Ragged? Haven't been in there in a while. I'll have to go give them a fondle. My thought was they are Fischers answer ro the Alaska.

Is your impression that the Alaska is higher quality/longer lasting? Fischer BC boots fit me perfect but I wish they lasted longer.

I had to pick up some bcx5s last year to replace my 6s that were falling apart and those god forsaken Svartisens that torured my feet. The 5s are fine, really dont seem much (any?) less powerful than the 6s despite the lack of the external cuff.

I'd think the higher cuff of the new TN or Alaska would at least bring a bit more leverage into the equation. Any insight on that idea?

[Woodserson]

I have been curious about those. Is that at Ragged? Haven't been in there in a while. I'll have to go give them a fondle. My thought was they are Fischers answer ro the Alaska.

Is your impression that the Alaska is higher quality/longer lasting? Fischer BC boots fit me perfect but I wish they lasted longer.

I had to pick up some bcx5s last year to replace my 6s that were falling apart and those god forsaken Svartisens that torured my feet. The 5s are fine, really dont seem much (any?) less powerful than the 6s despite the lack of the external cuff.

I'd think the higher cuff of the new TN or Alaska would at least bring a bit more leverage into the equation. Any insight on that idea?

Yes, Ragged.
I'd say these are going to offer more leverage from the ankle than the Alaska. The Alaska is quite soft on the uppers, the power comes from a stable sole and bottom half of the boot. The ankles help a bit but are not primary drivers. This allows the Alaska to be more friendly to kick and glide.

The Fischer seems very DH focused. I'd be hard pressed to take this thing on a multi day flat polar Transnordic journey. I'm not sure what their aim was here.

I'm still sold on my combo of Alaska + Rossignol BCX10 (or 11 for 75mm).

[12gaugesage]

Yes, Ragged.
I'd say these are going to offer more leverage from the ankle than the Alaska. The Alaska is quite soft on the uppers, the power comes from a stable sole and bottom half of the boot. The ankles help a bit but are not primary drivers. This allows the Alaska to be more friendly to kick and glide.

The Fischer seems very DH focused. I'd be hard pressed to take this thing on a multi day flat polar Transnordic journey. I'm not sure what their aim was here.

I'm still sold on my combo of Alaska + Rossignol BCX10 (or 11 for 75mm).

Interesting, thanks for the info. I'm actually more curious now. Ive always longed for a more DH capable BC boot. I finally got some Excursions last year, they are mint, but nothing K&Gs like a toe bar design.

Hope we get a good season this year. Spent a lot of time on the lifts last year as XC and BC conditions were crap.

[Nitram Tocrut]

I actually had the chance to try them today in the store and my first impression was that they were not XC boots… they are so stiff and so high on the leg that I can’t imagine myself doing a lot of touring on those. My feeling is that my T4 seem better suited for touring than those. But if someone is looking for a DH oriented boot they look the proper fit. I tried the 47 and the vendor who probably wear around 40 said that the shorter sizes had the same height so really high on the leg.

I finally got the Alaska and I know I will get less support for DH but i already have the T4 for my more oriented DH skis. I forgot to mention that I tried the BC version.

Those are only my impression from trying them in the store but I could not see myself skiing dozens of km on those… As many said, I don’t know what is the focus of that boot. By the way, the boot is so stiff that I don’t know why they added the heel strap… but as I said may times, I only tried them in the shop

[lilcliffy]

IBy the way, the boot is so stiff that I don’t know why they added the heel strap… but as I said may times, I only tried them in the shop

That heel strap-adjustment has been on Fischers BCX boots for many years (BCX6/BCX8)- it is there to tighten up the width and shape of the achilles section of the boot. I have it on my BCX6 (c2012).

[Nitram Tocrut]

That heel strap-adjustment has been on Fischers BCX boots for many years (BCX6/BCX8)- it is there to tighten up the width and shape of the achilles section of the boot. I have it on my BCX6 (c2012).

I understand but in my particular case I could not see how they could be of any help considering the stiffness and how I fitted in them. I have large volume foot and I don’t remember ever having blister problem with my ski boots. But I can see it can be useful for some.

Like I said, I never skied the boots but I sure wish i could try them for some yo-yoing… If they were not that expensive I would have probably pulled the trigger to use them for DH… but they are close to 500$ with taxes…

[riel]

That heel strap-adjustment has been on Fischers BCX boots for many years (BCX6/BCX8)- it is there to tighten up the width and shape of the achilles section of the boot. I have it on my BCX6 (c2012).

I understand but in my particular case I could not see how they could be of any help considering the stiffness and how I fitted in them. I have large volume foot and I don’t remember ever having blister problem with my ski boots. But I can see it can be useful for some.

I'm not convinced that strap is supposed to be useful on the Transnordic boots.

Their entire purpose on the Transnordic boot might be simply to show a buyer that there isn't any feature from the lower end boots missing on the Transnordic boot.

[stilltryin]

BC size 45 is 2lb. 4 oz. per boot (I've seen lower claims -- though not by size).
Height is just a smidge higher than my T3 -- that's T3 with the liner in which does extends above the plastic.
Definitely stiffer side-to-side than my Alaskas (75mm) -- can't roll knee in w/o tilting the sole (and presumably edging the ski).
The interior space, above the back of the heel is only a finger width! (though it stretches to put the boot on) -- should hold heel in place great.
I have a bad ankle (wear a brace for hiking more than a few miles), so I appreciate the support.
Just received this evening. Looking forward to seeing how they ski.
One reason I ordered these is that my Fischer BCX5 are really, really comfortable, but don't always work to control the ski (yeah, it's the boots, not me!). Ski in question is old XCD/GT (later Eon). I expect that, for many, they are more boot than needed for that. I suppose, if I love them, I'll try a BC binding on a wider ski.
Given stiffness, these are, of course, not as immediately comfortable as the BCX5 -- I'll see how they break in.

Edit:
For comparison: Transnordic BC = 2lb. 4oz.; Alaska75 = 2lb. 10oz.; T3 = 3lb. 2oz.; BCX5 = 1lb. 12oz.

[stilltryin]

Will Transnordic boots make touring suck?
Was out breaking trail today across the flats with a few others, about 4 miles. The depth of the tracks we created varied from 3 - 6 inches. Karhu XCD/GT with Transnordic NNN/BC. Everyone else was on narrower skis and softer NNN/BC boots. We were not trying to speedily cover ground -- examining animal tracks now and then.
In any case, I appeared to be as comfortable touring along as anybody else.
The trade-off of using the stiffer boot in the flats was not extreme -- for me.
This will be an individual matter, of course.