Update from the XCD Knights

[connyro]

In my foggy little mind, what the Knights are actually trying to describe should be called DXC (downhill XC).

Wow! I like that... I like that A LOT! DXC!

No other meeting is scheduled until the end of May, but I sure will bring this to the Council. It will never be approved, but who knows, it might be a start to something new.

That would be a great way to separate the sports:
DXC= Downhill cross-country (like we do)
XCD= Everything else: Telemark, Alpine skiing, snowboarding, snoeshoeing, hiking, golfing, karting etc...

Ok, you can use it but I expect royalties paid in full by the Knights, quarterly. Make checks payable to The Get Ron Banned from Every Ski Forum Foundation (GRBESF)

[MikeK]

Well as far as I can tell XC stopped being XC when skating took over, as has been illustrated by our members. FWIW I know almost everyone who posts on this forum by first name. I've talked to them either in threads or in pms and sold them gear or talked about skiing, or get together's, etc. I respect their opinions A LOT. I know what they do, what they are into, what their backgrounds are. They aren't just some random assholes comin' in looking to troll a forum or argue about politics. They are skiers who are passionate about aspects of cross country and downhill skiing. Now and again we get some Big Mtn Tele skiers asking questions. A lot of those guys won't answer them because it isn't their area of knowledge or interest. The few guys who are here that are Tele skiers are a bit burned out by that, so they don't really respond much either. I think they ski XCD because it's new and exciting for them. It's not easy.

I'm not sure everyone that posts here evelopes the true scope of XCD. It really is the entire middle ground. It's a BIG area. Rec XC and Racing XC leave a big void, literally in terms of terrain that is skiable between skiing at the golf course (no offense, I know this is usually a derogatory thing) and skiing big mountains. XCD can actually cover that entire spectrum but fits it's optimum right in the middle.

It seems many people in this country are not interested in learning things that are difficult. They aren't interesting in being on terrain or snow that may be difficult to negotiate. Go to any ski forum and see how many skiers actually like skiing on snow that isn't groomed. It's not the majority, if it was, hell I'd see a lot more on my journeys.

And back to the spectrum of XCD, we have everything here, from those who are obsessed with the touring aspect to those that are obsessed with the turning aspect, but they do it all with leather boots, simple XC bindings, and XCD skis.

It's really not that Knights came here to conquer us, they saw how we had thought about Noridc BC skiing and decided they would adopt us. The members here spoke, and the Knights heard their call. The Knights are not conquistadors, they are protectors.

If we don't speak, then our sport dies. No one will make metal edge skis with minimal sidecut and large single cambers if we don't buy them. No one will make leather boots anymore if we all switch to plastic. Some of us still care, and some of us still enjoy it. Don't look down on us, and certainly don't step into a community that it built itself literally out of ashes of nothingness, and tell it that it needs to change. You sir, are an outsider. Actually I think everyone on this forum that I've spoke with has a set of leather boots and XCD skis among others. If you don't, that's fine, but don't come walking expecting everyone else to change because you don't agree. It just doesn't work that way.

[lilcliffy]

LJ- would you prefer that the debate of WTF is "XCD" be moved to a different thread?

I am actually very interested in your original premise and question (i.e. what are the upper, dimensional limits of downhill skiing using XC equipment).

I wish I was in the financial position to join you in your exploration of putting XC-bindings on the bigger skis.

Connyro (et al)- (regardless of whether your gear meets the rigid definition of "XCD") considering your use of the Excursions and the Vectors...what binding are you using with that setup (i.e. "Telemark" or "XC")? What do you think the "xcd" performance of the Vector BC would be with a XC boot-binding? For example: Alaska/Stetind/Quest Advance/Svartisen with NNNBC; or Alaska/Antarctic/Quest Advance/Svartisen and a 3-pin binding?

I have fairly rigorously tested the Vector BC in "xcd-skiing", over distance, with 500m verticals- but with "light" "Telemark" tech: T4 and 3-pin-cable. I was not left with the sense that I would be able to effectively power the Vector with a XC boot and binding...(and BTW- as I'm sure I have always said- the Vector is a incredible ski- if I had more vertical in my local skiing, I would already own a pair (or pehaps the Kom)).

Because- using the initial premise of this thread- if the Vector BC can be effectively downhill-skied with XC boots-bindings- doesn't the Vector then become a potential "XCD" ski?

[MikeK]

LJ- would you prefer that the debate of WTF is "XCD" be moved to a different thread?

It's fine here unless you want it to be specific to the title for future users searching. They may not understand this Knight business.

I am actually very interested in your original premise and question (i.e. what are the upper, dimensional limits of downhill skiing using XC equipment).

It's a very interesting question, and I suspect everyone will have different answers as to what works well with what. We all have our different opinions but I think we should agree that it's somewhere between track XC/skate and resort Telemark.

Because- using the initial premise of this thread- if the Vector BC can be effectively downhill-skied with XC boots-bindings- doesn't the Vector then become a potential "XCD" ski?

I think that has been the question, but to me, why?

I feel like you are going to take what that ski does best and severely limit it. That ski was designed and offered as a Tele/AT ski before they fishscaled it and someone called it XCD.

Again my whole premise of a lot of this based on what you would see in a Craig Dostie article http://www.earnyourturns.com/33004/waxl ... i-roundup/. All the narrower XCD skis are clipped and on the upper end you see scaled Alpine/Tele skis. It's the trend. Like I say I won't be surprised if scales become the next big AT thing.

I could also reference other articles from the same clan dismissing leather boots because the don't offer enough downhill control. Well no kidding!

So XCD becomes no longer XC anything. It's just D.

And that's fine and all, but isn't the D Nordic Downhill aka Telemark? Or has everything just went so fat, powerful, plastic and DDDDDD that it just flowed over into the XC side of things. It surely has trended that way since Tele made it's comeback, but at some point, it's just DH skiing. The XC factor becomes so compromised it's just walking from slope to slope and up. Where is the middle ground in that? Sounds kind of one sided to me.

[lilcliffy]

Because- using the initial premise of this thread- if the Vector BC can be effectively downhill-skied with XC boots-bindings- doesn't the Vector then become a potential "XCD" ski?

I think that has been the question, but to me, why?

I feel like you are going to take what that ski does best and severely limit it. That ski was designed and offered as a Tele/AT ski before they fishscaled it and someone called it XCD.

Well..don't know "why" per say..but isn't that the original point of this thread? How big and phat a ski can you effectively downhill ski with XC boots and bindings?

Also- I don't think that Voile ever intended to suggest that adding waxless traction to their skis made them "XCD" skis in a classical sense. It was simply a recognition that adding waxless traction to an "alpine touring" ski would allow low-angle approaches without the use of climbing skins.

Again my whole premise of a lot of this based on what you would see in a Craig Dostie article http://www.earnyourturns.com/33004/waxl ... i-roundup/. All the narrower XCD skis are clipped and on the upper end you see scaled Alpine/Tele skis. It's the trend.

I have read this article- and in all fairness it was Fischer that dropped the S-78/S-88. Fischer is clearly targeting the S-Bound line towards at least the lighter end of "Telemark" and "AT" (i.e. alpine or big-mtn "touring" tech).

Totally agree it is the trend- and as is typical with dominant trends is that they tend to influence everything...I have no problem with the "xcd"-ability of current "alpine touring" skis- I think it is just smart. What I find disappointing is that design trend spilling over and dominating the construction of BC-XC skis (hence my isolated frustration with parabolic sidecut added to every BC-XC ski).

Like I say I won't be surprised if scales become the next big AT thing.

Hasn't it already?

I think Asnes has it bang-on when they class all of their big-mtn climb/turn skis as "alpine touring"- your choice to put either a Nordic or Alpine binding on it!

Asnes' "XCD" skis are classified as "backcountry-xcountry" skis (i.e. the "Fjellski")- skis that are designed for XC-skiing in mountainous terrain. In the Norwegian market, there seems very little interest in "hybrid" skis like the S-Bounds and the Madshus XCDs...

Here's a question what do the "Knights" think of the S-Bounds/Madshus XCDs?

I, personally, have always found these "hybrid" skis do compromise XC performance in order to offer moderate downhill performance...In certain terrain, I appreciate and welcome that compromise...in others- not so much.

[lilcliffy]

Well again I think that no matter what the working definition of “XCD” is…

As a wise man once said- there is “XCD” the noun, and “XCD” the verb…

I assume that everyone can agree that “xcd” the verb can refer to any Nordic skiing that is a reasonably even mix of xcountry and downhill skiing?

Obviously, regardless of the definition of “XCD” as a class of Nordic skiing- one can go “xcd-skiing” on any class of Nordic equipment; including opposite ends of the spectrum:
• xcd-skiing on performance track equipment can be done- I have seen it done- and for most it is a wild, stiff, cambered ride!
• xcd-skiing on big-mtn, rigid, powerful “Telemark” equipment.

So- let me see if I have the “Knight’s” definition of XCD, in terms of preserving the sanctity of xcountry in “XCD”:
• Downhill skiing on Nordic ski technology that does not “overly” sacrifice true xcountry “kick and glide”.
• Therefore, the boots/shoes, must be flexible enough through the instep, and from the ankle up, to allow a full Nordic stride;
• And the bindings must offer a full range of motion to allow a full, Nordic stride- but have enough resistance to produce a Nordic “kick”.
• The only limitation I see to the ski is that it must have at least a single camber, underfoot- in order to allow a Nordic “kick” (i.e. a fully-rockered ski would never qualify).

LJ- does this meet your working definition?

I think that we have generated a number of questions (assuming the initial premise of “XCD”):
1. Can a ski designed for “alpine touring” (i.e. “Alpine touring” or “Telemark”) be considered an “XCD” ski if it fits the above criteria?
2. Does a heavy-duty BC-XC boot like the Alaska/Stetind/Svartisen/Quest Advance meet the above criteria?
3. Are materials a determining factor? For example: I am assuming that a very stiff, powerful leather “Telemark” boot would not fit the above criteria? I am assuming that a purely synthetic boot could meet the above criteria?

And I have my own question regarding “free-pivot” and Nordic “kick”…

Is the effective and consistent ability to produce a true Nordic “kick” part of the Knights’ definition of “XCD”?

Despite the fact that some skiers can get some limited “kick” with a free-pivot binding (we have recently discussed this on the forum )- IMHO there is a dominant misperception in the big-mtn touring world that a free-pivot binding offers optimum “kick & glide” performance…

[MikeK]

Well..don't know "why" per say..but isn't that the original point of this thread? How big and phat a ski can you effectively downhill ski with XC boots and bindings?

From a purely scientific standpoint, sure... but there are so many variable that affect this, it's hardly going to be a scientific study.

Also- I don't think that Voile ever intended to suggest that adding waxless traction to their skis made them "XCD" skis in a classical sense. It was simply a recognition that adding waxless traction to an "alpine touring" ski would allow low-angle approaches without the use of climbing skins.

I don't necessarily think so either. I think the assumption of those writing the magazine articles has been fishscales = XCD. As in below... I was posing that a bit tongue-in-cheek. Yes, we already have fishscaled AT skis! We've just failed to call them such.

I have read this article- and in all fairness it was Fischer that dropped the S-78/S-88. Fischer is clearly targeting the S-Bound line towards at least the lighter end of "Telemark" and "AT" (i.e. alpine or big-mtn "touring" tech).

Totally agree it is the trend- and as is typical with dominant trends is that they tend to influence everything...I have no problem with the "xcd"-ability of current "alpine touring" skis- I think it is just smart. What I find disappointing is that design trend spilling over and dominating the construction of BC-XC skis (hence my isolated frustration with parabolic sidecut added to every BC-XC ski).

I don't think it's just that. The entire Madshus line below the Annum is missing.

I think Asnes has it bang-on when they class all of their big-mtn climb/turn skis as "alpine touring"- your choice to put either a Nordic or Alpine binding on it!

Asnes' "XCD" skis are classified as "backcountry-xcountry" skis (i.e. the "Fjellski")- skis that are designed for XC-skiing in mountainous terrain. In the Norwegian market, there seems very little interest in "hybrid" skis like the S-Bounds and the Madshus XCDs...

Here's a question what do the "Knights" think of the S-Bounds/Madshus XCDs?

I, personally, have always found these "hybrid" skis do compromise XC performance in order to offer moderate downhill performance...In certain terrain, I appreciate and welcome that compromise...in others- not so much.

I can't speak for the Knights, but as far a I know their philosophy was everything up to 109mm shovel with Nordic Rocker and traditional camber was a XCD ski. The S 112 and BC110 don't make it, but essentially they are the same skis as the 109 shovel, it's just that they came out after the Karhu series.

They certainly are hybrid skis. But they retain enough XC to still make the decent K+G skis. You aren't going to win any races with them, hell they won't even fit in the tracks, but I think they do pretty well on ungroomed terrain. That's why XCD skis are a spectrum though, the most touring focused are highly cambered, long and thin. The most D focused are shapely, fatter and less cambered, but still retain some semblance of an XC ski. They have camber, not rocker. They have a more traditional (now) sidecut.

But the line is certainly fuzzy where one says it's not XC-able anymore and it's an AT ski. Maybe an AT ski would be a better XC ski in some conditions. Defining that line is tough, but again the point is if we care about the XC in the skis, we need to decide what is acceptable. If the masses decide shuffling with no camber, 100mm under foot fishscale skis is acceptable, and plastic boots and free pivots are better than XC-type bindings, then manufacturers won't waste time with our beloved sledding hill skis.

There's already a great lack of information about this stuff, and a great many people who probably would like to do it that don't know it exists (I didn't for a long time). And there's also a great force of downhill skiers that will say you need the most power, turn-focused skis to ski 90% of the terrain (at least here in the east), which is simply not true. The vast majority of the terrain is rolling, short ups and downs, flats, etc...

This is why Dave "Pinnah" Mann started his famous site years ago. And this is why we started the wiki for this forum.

No one here wants to discourage anyone from any type of skiing. But I do like to hear the spectrum we get from XCD which is very, very touring focused (like you Gareth) and very, very turn focused (like Johnny). I'm somewhere in the middle, but I feel the pull from both sides. I enjoy both aspects of the sport, and it's why I love it so much. It takes everything I really like about XC and DH skiing and lets me take it anywhere I want. I also, by the way I engage, avoid the things I don't like about track XC skiing and DH resort skiing.

[Cannatonic]

we should learn from Asnes and just call everything Fell Skiing! I think I'm slowly coming around to Asnes' point of view. I've found I only like scales on skinny skis that have double camber. We are definitely at the high-water mark of the "scales" phenomenon! They are springing up on snowboards and AT skis like mushrooms after a spring rain.

What I don't see discussed often is that scales can be a nightmare in any snow condition other than wet/corn spring snow. I had a couple days on cold, dry snow where Fischer's current off-track pattern slowed me to a crawl (that's WITH Maxiglide on there). I'd say it took twice the normal effort to ski up & down Smugglers Notch. Wider skis with the scales are often SLOW. I can't imagine snowboarding in deep, dry snow with scales on my base. Across the 280mm width of the board? Would be slow as molasses.

The ski industry moves in cycles - get everyone psyched up about the current trend so they buy gear, then change it a few years later. The ski industry has been flat for decades. Customer base isn't growing. Companies are competing against the used ski market at all times. Therefore I retain a healthy degree of skepticism, and you should too! No disrespect to Dostie, but he's essentially a paid whore of the ski industry, right? Of course he's always going to hype whatever the current year's products are.

Look at Backcountry magazine, essentially a glossy sales brochure for the industry. They won't even discuss or acknowledge the existence of the touring equipment that we use. Why? The profit margin on AT skis, wide/scaled skis, rigid plastic boots, is 2-3 times what is for the nordic/XCD gear. Do these folks want people to buy $60 Super Tele bindings and Asnes skis for $300 that will last for 10 years? The Asnes Gamme skis I bought are built at least as well as Voile and Dynafit skis.

btw Fischer Sbound 78 and 88 are going strong, I just saw them at Ragged Mountain in NH last week.

[MikeK]

Can,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fischer-Outabou ... Sw--1Wr-E1

I'm tempted myself. A tad short for what you want perhaps but a good compliment to your 78s for cold days.

I can't believe they used to make wax versions of the S Bounds and they stopped. Didn't sell I guess.

There's also a screamin' deal on a pair of Wax Eons on the bay. 195s. I kinda want them... but I also really want those integrated skins

[Cannatonic]

Mike - only about $120 shipped - seems like a great deal! They don't even make these anymore. Go for it! this is how I found my E99's, for about the same price too.

I have a couple even older treasures from the 90's awaiting bindings, absolutely no possibity of ebay purchases at this time for me! I should be selling stuff