NNNBC-Magnum

[lilcliffy]

Good discussion guys - tempted to throw in my 0.02 again but I'd just like to remind y'all that we should start separate threads for questions. Our reviews tend to get a little long and off topic - I'm as guilty as anyone for doing that but lets try to keep them to personal observations/feelings/findings/etc related to the original topic product. This will help future Ttalkers and lurkers extract the most info they can from them. Thanks!

Not sure if I understand what you want us to do Mike...We are discussing the limitations of the NNNBC binding...we are having a discussion.

[CIMA]

Do you think you can avoid striding and/or steering skis in deep snow?

Since striding too much in deep snow decreases "effective width" made by both skis, that technique would be disadvantageous in terms of flotation especially for skinny skis. As powder depth increases, telemark turns get closer to parallel turns. The following vid is an example of skiing in about 30cm dry powder.

[video][/video]

Gear: Fischer Outtabounds Crown, Salomon Xadv raid, Salomon Xadv-8

[MikeK]

It's fine... these reviews turn into discussions... it's just how it's going to roll. I was just making a suggestion that we might want to separate lecture from discussion i.e. lecture here, discussion in another thread... but this forum is making up it's identity as it goes, so if it goes that way, so be it.

My only concern is I don't want people to be detracted from reviews by discussion - common sense says look at the OP first, then go from there and read more if need be... but some forum users don't do that.

I could break up these review threads and move the discussion to the main forum, but I'd lose a lot of good comments related to the product by doing so... so I'll leave it be.

[lilcliffy]

CIMA-

Another great vid!

I think I understand what you are saying- the technique you are using appears very similar to my experience with steering parallel and carved turns in powder. It is certainly very different then the skidding/stemming technique you were using on the consolidated snow (in the last video).

I am not sure if I understand your comment of the loss of "effective width" in a telemark stride. If your weight is relatively evenly distributed between both skis in a telemark stride- how are you losing "effective width"?

[CIMA]

I am not sure if I understand your comment of the loss of "effective width" in a telemark stride. If your weight is relatively evenly distributed between both skis in a telemark stride- how are you losing "effective width"?

Yes, you're correct. The weight tends to be distributed evenly between both skis.
However, as for flotation we should take the flow of snow into consideration as well.

Though I would not like to go into detail about physics in front of experts like MikeK, my intuitive understandings are the followings:

Let's consider two extreme cases: 1) a skier with her feet shut tightly 2) a skier with his feet wide apart.
Suppose they're on the same boots, bindings and skis, and their weight are same, too.

If two skiers descend on the hill covered with powder, which one will be able to gain more flotation from snow?
Many of us would imagine that she would get more flotation. That's one of the reasons why old-school alpine-ski techniques dictated us to have our feet stick together to float in powder.

[video][/video]

When we close our feet tightly, the flow of the snow inside (between feet) is blocked. Thus the skis could behave like mono ski which has twice as wide as original one. I meant the "effective width" in this sense in my previous post.
When we stride widely, the overlap area between front and back skis decreases. That would be disadvantageous compared with parallel stance, because we would get a smaller flotation as the skis can block smaller amount of snow.

As for flotation we get an extra benefit from telemark-ski technique. On NNN/SNS system bindings we could get another extra one. However, mentioning those seems to be out of the scope of this thread.

Here is an example of skiing in deep powder (50cm up to bottom-less) on SNS.

[video][/video]

Gear: Fischer S-bound 88, Salomon SNS BC XA, Salomon Xadv-8

[MikeK]

Though I would not like to go into detail about physics in front of experts like MikeK, my intuitive understandings are the followings:

You should ask my colleagues who these so called 'experts' are... we are wrong just as much as anyone else. Please do not censor yourself on my account.

Plus physics is like skiing - you have to do it wrong a lot before you can ever have a chance to do it right... (and even then it will be wrong!)...



And if this is somehow related to something I might have said on another forum about a certain individual or set of them, I was referring to those who enforce their ideas with ridicule and hatred towards others opinions or beliefs and pass it off as fact. Being right or wrong has no meaning at the end of the day. Learning, sharing, exploring, and growing is all that matters IMO.

[lilcliffy]

When we close our feet tightly, the flow of the snow inside (between feet) is blocked. Thus the skis could behave like mono ski which has twice as wide as original one. I meant the "effective width" in this sense in my previous post.
When we stride widely, the overlap area between front and back skis decreases. That would be disadvantageous compared with parallel stance, because we would get a smaller flotation as the skis can block smaller amount of snow.

As for flotation we get an extra benefit from telemark-ski technique. On NNN/SNS system bindings we could get another extra one. However, mentioning those seems to be out of the scope of this thread.

CIMA- I understand what you are saying.

However-depending on the terrain, snow, and boot/binding- I cannot always keep my skis tightly parallel as you describe. This is especially true seeing I am on longer touring-orientated skis (200+cm).

Another great video. Your technique...is very different than mine in general...or at least it is different than what my technique has become in recent years. Your technique in general reminds me of how I have telemarked in the past- with fairly rigid boots/bindings. My skis are much longer than yours. In order to steer through those short radius turns (similar to your videos)- in the past I have needed fairly rigid boots/bindings to steer my 200cm skis. In general I see this technique as something of hybrid between telemark and alpine.

You continue to clearly demonstrate that by choosing a context-specific ski (i.e. length, flex, width), with a downhill-performance focus; you can downhill ski very effectively on an SNS-adv/NNNBC setup.

You comment; "As for flotation we get an extra benefit from telemark-ski technique"- what do you mean specifically?

Please don't hesitate to discuss your thoughts...This is a review of "NNNBC"- we are discussing the performance and potential limitations of this binding. What is said about "NNNBC" is equally applicable to "SNS-adv". And there is no reasonable way to discuss the binding without discussing technique. So discussing downhill/telemark technique with regards to NNNBC seems very appropriate to me- especially on a "Telemark" forum.

So- please don't hesitate- what is your perspective on NNNBC (SNS-adv) and flotation in deep powder?

[CIMA]

My skis are much longer than yours. In order to steer through those short radius turns (similar to your videos)- in the past I have needed fairly rigid boots/bindings to steer my 200cm skis. In general I see this technique as something of hybrid between telemark and alpine.

It is true that the longer skis get the harder you can steer them through short radius turns.
If you're xcD oriented, pick skis shorter than your body height.
Yes, other guys also mentioned my turns as a hybrid before. Actually I don't like stereotypical telemark styles very much because those wear me down too much. Those remind me of lunge squat.

You comment; "As for flotation we get an extra benefit from telemark-ski technique"- what do you mean specifically?

Many telemark skiers love telemark in powder because it gives them an excellent sense of buoyance compared to alpine skiing.
Why is that?
By striding skis backward and forward and shifting weight balance slightly to the rear ski, the front ski gets an extra flotation compared with the case in parallel position. As a result, the front ski goes up. That would create a situation similar to one we have seen in telemark on the bumps:

[video][/video]

We should cash in such extra flotation as much as possible.
When I telemark in deep powder, I always imagine "invisible bumps" and decide the timings of turns.

Since the hinge mechanism of NNN bindings, along with soft XCD boots and the freedom of ankles, can drive the tips of skis much easier than cable bindings with plastic boots, we can unexpectedly get a good flotation in deep powder even on S-bound 88. Though the degree of flotation of such skinny skis is never better than modern fat rocker skis, the feeling of buoyance is good enough for me to get addicted.

[lilcliffy]

By striding skis backward and forward and shifting weight balance slightly to the rear ski, the front ski gets an extra flotation compared with the case in parallel position.

Since the hinge mechanism of NNN bindings, along with soft XCD boots and the freedom of ankles, can drive the tips of skis much easier than cable bindings with plastic boots, we can unexpectedly get a good flotation in deep powder even on S-bound 88. Though the degree of flotation of such skinny skis is never better than modern fat rocker skis, the feeling of buoyance is good enough for me to get addicted.

My experience in powder is similar- I shift more weight to my rear ski in order to augment early tip rise of the front ski.

Another difference in your technique is that you at least appear to sit back more than I do in general. Just from watching your videos your telemark articulation appears to be be led by shifting the rear leg.

My telemark technique at least appears to have more of a forward motion than yours. My telemark technique is led by placement and edging of the forward ski- followed by the placement of the rear ski.

I do not fully understand your explanation of NNN/SNS facilitating better flotation...

[CIMA]

I do not fully understand your explanation of NNN/SNS facilitating better flotation...

Don't think too much, lilcliffy! Feel!

[video][/video]